updated 2/14/2007 2:04:56 PM ET 2007-02-14T19:04:56

Guests: Joe Klein, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Ryan Lizza

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST:  Tonight, we‘re going to be talking to Anna Nicole‘s bodyguard, a man who also claims to be her former lover and is on the growing list of men who could possibly be the father of her 5-month-old baby.  His live interview with us coming up later in the show.

But first, serious business.  We are watching right now Congress as it continues its unprecedented debate on the future of the Iraq war, unprecedented because for the first time since the president launched this war four years ago, Congress is doing more than giving the commander-in-chief a blank check, with Democrats telling the president staying the course is no longer an option.


REP. ROBERT WEXLER (D), FLORIDA:  Each month we remain in Iraq, 100 more American soldiers die, hundreds more are maimed, and $5.5 billion is spent.

REP. PATRICK MURPHY (D), PENNSYLVANIA:  The president‘s current course is not resolute, it is reckless.

REP. JOHN CONYERS (D), MICHIGAN:  This week, we tell this administration, Enough is enough.  Stop ignoring the American people.  Stop ignoring your generals.


SCARBOROUGH:  And word tonight that a growing number of Republicans may be abandoning the president on this vote.  And if they do, they may be in lockstep with most Americans, who, according to a new poll, want a cap on troop levels and Americans out by 2008.  And late word tonight from a senior U.S. official that anti-American cleric Moqtada al Sadr has fled Iraq and is now in Iran.  What does it all mean to the president and this Congress, to Americans at home and U.S. troops fighting abroad in Iraq?

Here now Joe Klein, “Time” magazine columnist.  Also Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of “The Nation” magazine, and Ryan Lizza.  He‘s the White House correspondent for “The New Republic.”

Joe, let‘s begin with the big question tonight, as Congress continues this debate into the evening.  Is this certainly debate over this non-binding resolution significant, or is it a sham?

JOE KLEIN, “TIME” MAGAZINE:  Well, it‘s a kind of significant sham, I guess, because it‘s not going to have any impact on the president.  It‘s significant, though, to the extent that the debate itself is getting out to the American people and that they‘re seeing, you know, congressmen like Patrick Murphy, an Iraq war veteran, who was incredibly eloquent, Democrat, against the surge today.  And also, it‘s going to be really significant for the Republican Party, to see how many Republicans, you know, abandon the president at this point.

SCARBOROUGH:  Exactly.  And while they debate on this resolution, it‘s going to have no practical impact on the war.  This new “USA Today”/Gallup poll shows, again, that 63 percent of Americans want U.S. troops completely out of Iraq by 2008.

Joe, are the American people really that far ahead of Washington politicians, who on the House side are debating a non-binding resolution, and on the Senate side can‘t even muster up the courage to even debate this issue?

KLEIN:  Well, you know, they‘ve been that way for a while, I think, Joe.  The question—the big question I have and the big concern I have is that with Bush pushing this war so hard against public opinion, there may be reaction and people may just say, I don‘t want to have anything to do with that part of the world, or the world, period, anymore.  And that‘s really dangerous because we do have national interests in that region.  There are important things to care about.  And I think that there is a struggle, if not all-out war, against radical Islamist, you know, terrorism.

SCARBOROUGH:  But of course, ironically, this war, which this president launched because he wanted to fight radical Islamic terrorism, is having the opposite effect, isn‘t it, Joe...

KLEIN:  No—no...

SCARBOROUGH:  ... where...


SCARBOROUGH:  ... where you‘ve got a lot of Americans saying—and in fact, I was just having dinner with one tonight who said, You know what?  I don‘t care about Sadr City.  I don‘t care about what‘s going on in Fallujah.  Why should be I worried about these things?

You know, and it makes me angry that George Bush has put us there, but they might start saying that about Iran, about Saudi Arabia, about all these other countries, where we could have a regional war breaking out in the coming years.

KLEIN:  Well, you know, I think that—don‘t know whether he went into this particular war to fight Islamic terrorism.  I think his advisers, like Cheney and Rumsfeld, wanted to go into this war to really deliver, you know, a message to the people of the region, in other words, the Bernard Lewis message, which is that Arabs only understand strength, which I think is kind of ridiculous.

But in doing so, he abandoned the real war, which was the war against al Qaeda and which is taking place now in southern Afghanistan and in Pakistan.  And I got to say, Joe, I am far more worried about Pakistan these days than I am about Iran.

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, and for good reason.  I mean, if you look at the situation in Pakistan, it‘s been this way for years now, that could, in the end, be the most dangerous country on the planet for us, if you look at Islamic extremism...

KLEIN:  They have a nuke.

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes.  And Islamic extremists ready, willing and able to assassinate Musharraf and take control of those nukes at any time.

Katrina, I want to show you another number that came out of the “USA Today” poll today -- 57 percent of Americans want to cap the number of troops that are fighting in Iraq.  But as I said before, the Senate can‘t even figure out a way to debate this issue that‘s probably the most important issue facing America today.

What‘s wrong with our leaders in the Senate in Washington, and in the House, where we‘re just debating a non-binding resolution?

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL, “THE NATION”:  I think that—the American people have been far out of ahead of the politicians and the pundits, many of the pundits, in these last months, and certainly in this last year.  I think the more important poll number, Joe, is the 63 percent of Americans who want an end to this occupation, who want troops to come out of the middle of this civil war by the end of next year.

You know, Joe talks about this widening war.  The occupation of Iraq, the administration misleading us into a war that has fueled radical Islam in this part of the world, according to the National Intelligence Estimate, according to experts on the region.  We need to withdraw.  We need to let the Iraqis sort it out with reconstruction and with aid.  And the American people are sending a signal...

SCARBOROUGH:  By when, Katrina?

VANDEN HEUVEL:  ... to a dysfunctional Senate—a dysfunctional Senate and a House that is taking a first step.  And listen, it‘s sad after almost five years of this reckless war, which has cost thousands of Iraqi and American lives, which has cost this country billions in needs—in money that could be used for unmet needs at home, that you have a Congress debating a non-binding resolution.  It has to be a first start.

And I think many of the Democrats are aware of that.  They understand that the wind of the people pushing them toward a more sane outcome—and it‘s not just liberals.  It‘s not just Democrats.  It‘s—the Council on Foreign Relations, the bastion of establishment in this country called yesterday for disengagement from Iraq...

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, Katrina...

VANDEN HEUVEL:  ... because we need to regroup and fight...

SCARBOROUGH:  And that‘s what I was asking you when you talked about getting out of Iraq.  Do you agree that we need to be out in the next year, in 2008?

VANDEN HEUVEL:  Oh, I think—listen, look at what‘s going on in Iraq, where an overwhelming majority of Iraqis believe U.S. troops are provoking more violence.  Listen to a 19-year-old...


SCARBOROUGH:  ... asking you, through, Katrina...

VANDEN HEUVEL:  ... in the middle of a civil war...

SCARBOROUGH:  I know.  But the reason why I‘m asking you this...

VANDEN HEUVEL:  Oh, yes...

SCARBOROUGH:  ... is we know what‘s going on over there.  We see the chaos every day.  But good luck finding a president candidate, be that candidate a Republican or a Democrat, saying, Yes, we need to bring the troops home by 2008.

VANDEN HEUVEL:  The people...

SCARBOROUGH:  You just don‘t have them saying that.

VANDEN HEUVEL:  The voters are going to push candidates, and push...

SCARBOROUGH:  They voters—but who‘s saying it right now?

VANDEN HEUVEL:  Well, Barack Obama is saying in a clear a way—saying we must be...


VANDEN HEUVEL:  ... we must be out by 2008.

KLEIN:  March 31, 2008.

VANDEN HEUVEL:  And there will be others.  I mean, John Edwards is speaking about removing 50,000 troops.  Governor Vilsack is moving in some direction.  All are saying there has to be a moral and political role Congress plays in this.  Dennis Kucinich, Richardson, all will be pushed.  And you know what?  It‘s incumbent upon voters to make clear that they voted for something last November, and they believe that this country will be safer, the world will be safer and we can craft a more—a foreign policy that will make this world...

SCARBOROUGH:  All right...

VANDEN HEUVEL:  ... and this country safer, if we move in that direction.

SCARBOROUGH:  Ryan, another jolting number comes in the forms of the approval ratings for both parties on the issue of Iraq.  While 70 percent of Americans disapprove of the GOP‘s position on Iraq, 63 percent disapprove of the Democrats‘ position.  Why do Americans seem to have equal contempt for both parties when it comes to the issue of Iraq?  Shouldn‘t Democrats have a reason to believe that Americans should be pointing their fingers almost exclusively at George Bush and the Republican Party?

RYAN LIZZA, “THE NEW REPUBLIC”:  Yes.  Look, it‘s a sobering number for Democrats who believe that the 2006 elections were a sort of vote of confidence in them, rather than a vote of no confidence in Republicans.

But I think the news this week is that the Democrats in the House are actually going to show some leadership on this issue, and I think the debate today is just the first step.  Some reporting out tonight that, you know, there‘s a sort of three-step strategy here.  First they start with this non-binding resolution, put some Republicans who are in a tough spot on record, perhaps voting against this.

And look, they‘re reading the same polls that we‘re all reading, and they realize that the American public doesn‘t quite—there‘s not a big majority for defunding the troops, so it doesn‘t look like the Democratic leadership is going to go there.  Instead, what you‘re going to have is a strategy led by Murtha which is going to be to limit the number of troops available to President Bush by putting some restrictions on what troops will be allowed to be brought over to Iraq.

So that‘s the strategy.  That‘s the sort of two-part strategy, first this non-binding resolution, and then restricting what troops Bush can use.  So it‘s a sort of—a slow bleeding of our ability to do much more in Iraq.

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, you know, Joe Klein, also, there are—some Democrats have said they wanted to send a message to George W. Bush, but of course, George W. Bush told us several years ago that he didn‘t read newspapers.  Now he‘s telling us he doesn‘t have time to watch these debates because he‘s doing the people‘s business.  It reminds me of Bill Clinton saying he didn‘t have time to watch impeachment proceedings, or Jimmy Carter saying he didn‘t have time to watch our 1980 Olympic win over the Russians!  It‘s just such garbage!  You know he‘s watching it!

But why is it that the White House is sending this message that, in effect, they have contempt for what Congress is debating?

KLEIN:  Because they have contempt for what Congress is debating.



KLEIN:  You know, the contemptuous nature of this administration has been clear for quite some time now.  And if he‘s not watching the debate, that‘s fine.  If he‘s—but only if he‘s suddenly gotten interested in what‘s actually happening in Iraq.  The shocking thing about this administration is they‘re going to be remembered in all of history for this war, and they‘ve done it so incredibly incompetently.  And you know, that may change now with General Petraeus on the ground in Baghdad, but he has a very, very difficult mission.

One thing I will say about, you know, the time limits.  I was out with Barack Obama this weekend, and he is calling for withdrawal of all troops by March 31, 2008, which is a reversal of the position he took last summer, which was, you know, not to set a timetable.  And I think that there is a strong argument to begin the withdrawal but not to set a timetable because we—you know, we don‘t want to leave any safe havens there.  We may want to continue the battle in Anbar province, where apparently, some progress is being made.  But I think that, you know, most people now, except for the president, believe that we should pull our troops out of the areas where there really is a civil war going on, like Baghdad.

SCARBOROUGH:  And Joe, what do you make of this news that al Sadr has now fled the country and gone to Iran?  We‘re hearing that from U.S. senior military official.  Maybe he‘ll come back in the country.  But I was commenting to a friend last week that it was almost like the end of “The Godfather,” where protection was lifted for everybody.  Now, a week ago, al Sadr‘s lieutenants are being gunned down in the streets.  A lot of them—the other ones that are surviving are laying low.  Now al Sadr in Iran.  What‘s going on over there, and what‘s it mean for U.S. troops?

KLEIN:  Well, I‘m kind of surprised by that because I thought that there was a nod, nod, wink, wink relationship going on here, that the—the people in the Mahdi Army that we were taking out were people that Sadr wanted to have taken out—you know, rogue elements.  But if he‘s gone over there, maybe something else is afoot.  I mean, there have been rumors about attempts to assassinate the guy for years, and there are a number of Iraqis who really—who really have it in for him.  But we should also know where he went.  He went to Iran.

VANDEN HEUVEL:  The longer we stay, it seems to me that you will see more extremist elements, even more extreme than al Sadr.  You‘ll see militias spawned by attacks on the Shi‘ites.

I think a timetable is crucial.  I think a timetable signals to the Iraqis that we feel a political resolution must be made and that the longer we stay, the more our troops provoke more violence.

The Iraqis live this.  They are on the ground.  They have seen the largest displacement of their people since 1948 in the Middle East.  It is a humanitarian catastrophe.

I think we in this country need to listen to the American people who are saying, Find a way to end this war.  And Iraq, it is worth listening to the Iraqi people, who have signaled clearly over the last year, including Maliki, that they didn‘t want more U.S. troops.

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, and...

VANDEN HEUVEL:  They want a way to end this occupation.  And it isn‘t a war, by the way, anymore.  At best, it‘s a civil war in which 19-year-old Humvee drivers are caught in the middle.  At worst, it‘s a U.S. occupation, which is provoking more violence.

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  And finally, Ryan, we‘ve got to leave, but give us a prediction.  How many Republicans do you think George Bush is going to lose on this vote in the House?

LIZZA:  Oh, I don‘t think he‘s going to lose more—I mean, if he loses a dozen or, you know, as many as 20, I think that would be—that would be a lot.  But you know, the ones that are vulnerable, those—the last Northeastern Republican or (INAUDIBLE) you know, Chris Shays—it‘ll be interesting to see if he does...

SCARBOROUGH:  I was going to say, you‘re talking about Chris Shays. 

That‘s about the only one left.

LIZZA:  Yes, that‘s the last one.  We‘ll see what he does.  I mean, if I were—if I were a Republican looking at the 2006 elections and that poll that you just showed tonight, I‘d vote against it.

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Thank you so much, Ryan.  Thank you, Joe Klein.  Thank you, Katrina vanden Heuvel.  Greatly appreciate it.

Coming up: Anna Nicole‘s former bodyguard with us live to talk about their romantic relationship and whether he should be on the growing list of men who may be the father of her 5-month-old baby.

But first, Fox‘s “24” under fire, the military‘s top brass asking producers to tone down the scripts.  Is the show‘s over-the-top violence hurting U.S. troops?  We‘re going to talk to a top counterterrorism expert who says yes coming up next.


SCARBOROUGH:  “24” teaches torture.  That is the warning from some of the military‘s top brass to the show‘s producers, actually asking the Fox show to tone it down.  The dean of the West Point military academy met with “24‘s” producers—and we‘re not making this up—saying, quote, “I‘d like them to stop.  The kids see it and they say, If torture is wrong, what about ‘24‘?”

Well, the current season of “24” features torture in almost every episode.  He‘s a clip from last week‘s show, where Jack Bauer tortures his own brother by injecting him with a drug to cause intense pain.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  (INAUDIBLE) Jack.  His vitals are spiking across the line.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Do you want me to kill you?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I‘m going to do it my way!  Four more ccs!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I can‘t do that.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Son of a bitch!


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Do you want to die?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Drop your weapon!  Drop it!


SCARBOROUGH:  Are military interrogators learning the wrong lessons from “24”?  Here now is NBC terror analyst Evan Kohlmann.  You know, Evan, there‘ve been some young kids that have grown up to be in the military that have been watching “24” now for five, six years.  There‘s no doubt that what a lot of us see in Hollywood impacts our view of the world.  Could it be that kids have grown up and learned from Jack Bauer all the wrong lessons about interrogation and actually may be torturing people in the war on terror because of it?

EVAN KOHLMANN, NBC TERROR ANALYST:  Well, unfortunately, the reality is, is that Hollywood really does have an effect on the way that the war on terrorism is carried out.  When the National Counterterrorism Center was created in 2004, government officials called in the Walt Disney Company to help design the operations center down in Washington, D.C., to make it look like “24.”  When Department of Homeland Security has conferences on emerging terrorism threats that they can‘t think of, they bring in Hollywood screenwriters to come up with ideas.

I mean, I‘ve even heard anecdotal evidence that prior to 9/11, special forces units were using the movie “Executive Decision” with Kurt Russell and Steven Seagal in order to help train for possible hijacking plots.  And really, I don‘t think we want Steven Seagal to be dictating U.S.  counterterrorism policy.

The reality is, is that these do have an impact, and the military prior to 9/11 didn‘t have a big role or big experience in interrogating terrorists.  It wasn‘t part of their job.  So when confronted with this, young kids, who have not much more experience than what they see on TV or in the movies, sometimes they take this too far.  And I think that‘s how things like Abu Ghraib happen.  I don‘t want to blame this on Hollywood.  I don‘t think it‘s Hollywood—you know, they‘re doing this for dramatic purposes.  It makes good drama.  It makes good TV.

SCARBOROUGH:  But it‘s certainly having an impact or else the generals wouldn‘t be saying what they‘re saying.  They‘re making some very public, dramatic statements.  And I would think it would be embarrassing for them because they‘re upset by what they‘re seeing on “24.”

Let me snow you another clip from “24.”  Here Jack Bauer uses another man‘s wife as a way to get information out of him.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Running out of time!  You are going to tell me now how to find the rest of the nerve gas!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Go ahead and do it, Jack.  Get it done.  Hit me. 

Go ahead.  Do it!  Do it!




UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  You make me shoot her again, she‘ll be in a wheelchair for the rest of her life!


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Better tell him what he wants to know!


SCARBOROUGH:  Evan, would these type of torture techniques work in real life?

KOHLMANN:  No, they don‘t work.  I mean, I‘ve spoken with terrorists before, both in and out of custody, and I‘ve tried questioning them.  And I can tell you that by—almost in every case, if you want to get information out of someone in custody, the trick is, is you have to talk to them as a human being.  You have to talk with them and try to understand who they are and you have to ask them questions that they want to answer and generally work your way towards areas that you are looking for information on.

Beating them up, shooting them in the leg, injecting them with a truth serum, none of these methods proves—none of these provides useful information.  It‘s all nonsense.  It‘s total nonsense.

And more importantly, beyond just miseducating our interrogators, it‘s also miseducating the public.  And I think there are some people out there, including people in foreign countries, who think that this is really how America gets information out of terrorism detainees.  And the reality is, is that is not how we get information out of those we hold in Guantanamo Bay.  And aside from limited circumstances like in Abu Ghraib and whatnot, this is not what America does, and it‘s creating, I would say, a bad image for America‘s counterterrorism forces.  This is just not an interrogation works.  It doesn‘t work functionally, and hopefully, at least, it doesn‘t work in reality that way, either.

SCARBOROUGH:  And you know, Evan, some people out there maybe—may twist your words around and say, Well, it sounds like Evan Kohlmann‘s suggesting that we get to know them and we treat them gently because we don‘t want to hurt their feelings.  But I‘ve talked to U.S. soldiers that have gone through POW training camp, and they say the toughest guys that go through those camps can withstand everything.  They can withstand being put in coffins.  They can withstand sleep deprivation.  They can withstand so many things.  But you put a plate of food in front of them after three or four days, and they‘ll sit down to the good cop, start eating the food, and tell them absolutely everything.  Isn‘t that...


SCARBOROUGH:  That‘s what you‘ve learned, right?

KOHLMANN:  These people believe very fervently in what they are doing. 

And if you approach them with a hostile attitude, if you approach them with violence, they‘re going to clam or they‘ll provide you with misleading information.  Let‘s not forget about Ibn Sheihk al Libi, who told his interrogators that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda were hand in hand.  And all of a sudden, after we invaded Iraq, Ibn Sheikh al Libi turned around and said, I didn‘t really mean that.  I was lying.  I was being put under pressure.

So you know, it could be very dangerous.  It can provide very misleading results.

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Hey, thank you so much, Evan Kohlmann, as always.

KOHLMANN:  Thank you.

SCARBOROUGH:  We really do appreciate your insights.  Fascinating stuff.

Coming up, two big interviews in the Anna Nicole Smith‘s case.  We‘re going to hear form the woman who found the superstar‘s body and talk live to one of the men who may be her baby‘s daddy, the bodyguard.

But first: From Regis‘s dirty mouth to the Super Bowl that would make Janet Jackson blush, it‘s unnecessary censorship coming up next on “Must See S.C..”


SCARBOROUGH:  Time for tonight‘s “Must See SC,” some video you‘ve got to see.  First up, President Bush has his rivals on the Hill, but no one is tougher than David Letterman.  Take a look. 



only thing we have to fear is fear itself. 

JOHN F. KENNEDY, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. 


the enemy made their position clear, yet again, when they—when—when -

when—when we were able to stop...



SCARBOROUGH:  And finally, Jimmy Kimmel shows us what your favorite show would look like if the FCC were in charge, in this latest edition of “Unnecessary Censorship.”


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  ... he‘s in trouble with the law right now.  He is charged with (bleep)ing with his son. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Welcome to the Built Ford Tough (bleep) Off Show. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  He‘s very odd.  He‘s got a lot of black (bleep) in him. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  ... who will be two in July, is now about 100 pounds, but they called him Butter(bleep) when he was born.

REGIS PHILBIN, CO-HOST, “LIVE WITH REGIS AND KELLY”:  ... are so rough and tough, you know, and...

KELLY RIPA, CO-HOST, “LIVE WITH REGIS AND KELLY”:  They really jostle you down there. 

PHILBIN:  They chafe my (bleep).  They leave me all chafed. 


SCARBOROUGH:  I didn‘t know Regis talked like that.  Coming up, more bizarre twists in the Anna Nicole saga, with a fierce fight over who controls what‘s going to happen to her remains.  We‘re going to have an exclusive interview with a woman who found Anna Nicole‘s body, next.

And later, we‘re going to be joined live by Anna Nicole Smith‘s bodyguard, Alex Denk, one of the men who may be the baby‘s daddy.  We‘re going to talk to him about his relationship with Anna, coming up.



SCARBOROUGH:  Coming up, we‘re going to be talking to Anna Nicole‘s former bodyguard to discuss their very personal relationship and whether or not he could be the father of her 5-month-old daughter.  That conversation coming up in just a few minutes. 

But first, MSNBC‘s Rita Cosby is live in the Bahamas, where earlier today she talked to the woman who discovered Anna Nicole‘s body.  Rita, what can you tell us? 

RITA COSBY, HOST:  Yes, it was a quite revealing conversation, Joe.  I spoke to her and her long-time companion who have essentially been Anna Nicole‘s adopted parents while she‘s been here in the Bahamas.  They spent a lot of time with her, a lot of special private moments. 

And one of the painful times, needless to say, that they experienced was when they went to Florida.  They went up Thursday morning—remember, Anna Nicole passed away Thursday afternoon—and Birgitte Neven went there, she went to visit her friend.  She felt that her friend was asleep, sort of let her rest for a little bit, and then suddenly checked on her body.  And here is what she saw.  This is explaining what happened in that hotel room for the very first time. 


BIRGITTE NEVEN, FOUND ANNA NICOLE‘S BODY IN HOTEL:  When I looked at her, I knew something was wrong instantly, because there was no—when you‘re asleep, the chest rises and falls, and she was just lying there.  And I thought, “That can‘t be.  There‘s something not right.”  And I tried to (INAUDIBLE) I tried to push it up, and it wouldn‘t.  And then everything just happened so quick. 


COSBY:  And, Joe, she also said that Anna Nicole told her and also her long-time companion that she planned to adopt a Bahamian baby, and they strongly feel that she should be buried in the Bahamas, because they say this was her new home. 

Joe, back to you. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Thank you so much, Rita.  And we‘re going to be hearing a lot more about that at 10:00.  A quick programming note:  Rita is, of course, live in the Bahamas at 10:00 p.m. Eastern for a special MSNBC report on Anna Nicole Smith.  The investigation, of course, with Rita Cosby. 

Now here to talk about the bizarre details surrounding Anna Nicole Smith‘s death and after-death, Court TV news anchor Lisa Bloom and Tom O‘Neil, senior editor at “InTouch Weekly.” 

Lisa, let‘s start with you.  They can‘t even figure out who‘s going to get control of this body.  What‘s going on? 

LISA BLOOM, COURT TV ANCHOR:  Well, legally speaking, her next of kin would control what happens to her body.  The question is, is she legally married to the lawyer, Howard Stern, in which case he would make that decision?  If not, her next of kin is a 5-month-old baby, obviously inappropriate.  So then we‘re talking about her mother, with whom she‘s been estranged for many years.  I suspect her mother is going to make that decision, assuming that the will doesn‘t provide clearly what she wanted to happen to her remains. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, Lisa, of course, there‘s been fighting over the body.  But should we expect battles every day moving forward in this saga, until they figure out who gets the $90 to $400 million?

BLOOM:  Unfortunately, I think we are going to continue to see battles.  The battle over that money has raged for the last 12 years.  There‘s no end to it in sight.  Even though Anna is gone, J. Howard Marshall, the original guy who earned all that money, he‘s gone.  His son, Pierce, is gone.  Danny Smith, Anna‘s son, is gone.  It may be the curse of the Marshall money.  I don‘t know why they can‘t work it out, they each take a couple hundred million dollars, Joe, but nobody‘s been able to work it out so far. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes, we‘ve got a guest coming up that would take $100 million possibly.  Tom, I know a lot of people—I would take $100 million.  Tom, what did you hear from the family today?  What did “InTouch” hear from the family today? 

TOM O‘NEIL, “INTOUCH WEEKLY”:  Well, the mother, Vergie, is really cranking up the accusations.  She is now accusing Howard Stern of, quote, unquote, “killing” her daughter and Daniel.  She said, not only was it murder by virtue of him giving them drugs, but she say he was motivated by money. 

Now, in the past, she‘s kind of walked up close to this accusations, of him at least providing these drugs that led to her death, but she has never actually said, quote, unquote, “It‘s obvious these two people were killed.”  And she said they were killed for money. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Oh, my gosh.  Well, and, of course, she‘s gone down there, not been able to get close to her daughter‘s body.  Does it look right now like Howard K. Stern is lined up to be in a position to get the body, to get the money, to get custody of the baby? 

O‘NEIL:  He‘s told “Entertainment Tonight” that he‘s the executor to Anna Nicole‘s will, which was drawn up before this child was born.  If true, and if the child gets the $400 million, of course, he gets that executor‘s cut, which would be substantial. 

Meanwhile, the body‘s in nobody‘s hands, but the ex-boyfriend, who‘s the alleged—not even substantiated—father of this child, Larry Birkhead.  He has control of Anna Nicole‘s body, because the courts have ruled that his claim for DNA samples is valid up until February 20th.  So you have to feel real sorry for the mom.  She‘s down there.  She‘s doing her mother‘s duty.  She wants her little girl, Anna Nicole, who was estranged from her to rest in peace, and she‘s in a great, grand struggle to help that happen. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And, Lisa, who do you think the father of this baby is, from the best evidence you‘ve heard? 

BLOOM:  Well, look, Larry Birkhead has been wanting a DNA test all along.  Howard Stern has been running from the DNA test.  I think we could use our common sense here and say it probably is Larry Birkhead.  We don‘t usually see men lining for DNA tests in paternity tests. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, why won‘t a judge just order it?

BLOOM:  A judge did order it, Joe.  The problem is the judge ordered it in California instead of in the Bahamas.  The Bahamas is a sovereign nation, and they don‘t have to follow our court orders.

So Birkhead needs to take legal action in the Bahamas.  That‘s what he started to do over the last few days.  That‘s probably going to yield results. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And, of course, do you think, Lisa, that Howard K. Stern could find himself in trouble for some of these allegations? 

BLOOM:  I think yes.

SCARBOROUGH:  I mean, there seems to be a lot of suspicion based on methadone and the death of these two people.

BLOOM:  Now, look, how does he gain financially from the death of Anna Nicole?  They were not legally married.  Assuming that everything in the will was to go to her son, which is what he said, then her son is gone.  Everything is going to go to her daughter. 

So I don‘t see any financial motive.  But I think he had more of a financial motive to keep her alive, because she‘s essentially been supporting him all of these years from her income when he was her attorney.  With her gone, what does he got?  Does he have any other clients?  Does he have a business?  You know, apparently not. 

Now, I think the problem Howard Stern has is unethical conduct as an attorney, acting as her lawyer and her lover all these years, getting him in there as the executor of her will.  I mean, please.  As an attorney, this is highly offensive.  It brings disrepute on the bar.  He should have bowed out as her attorney long ago, maybe her legal affairs would have been left in better order. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Tom, when do you think we‘re going to find out who the father is? 

O‘NEIL:  I think Lisa is right.  We won‘t find out until the Bahamian court orders it.  And they have given indication that they will, so it may be a few weeks off yet.  Look, we already have five possibilities so far.  Imagine what‘s next in the news.

SCARBOROUGH:  The list may be growing.  Who knows?  Tom O‘Neil, Lisa Bloom, thanks so much for being with us. 

And coming up next, Anna Nicole‘s bodyguard joins us live to talk about their romantic relationship.  Could he be the father of her daughter?  It‘s possible.  We‘re talking to him next. 

And later, Sharon Stone gets naughty at a German auction.  We‘ll show you the bizarre video and reveal what happened off camera, coming up in “Hollyweird.”



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  She‘s not breathing, and she‘s not responsive. 

She‘s actually Anna Nicole Smith.


SCARBOROUGH:  Anna Nicole Smith‘s death has thrust her baby daughter, Dannielynn, into the spotlight.  Not only does this 5-month-old stand to inherit millions, but the question of just who the father is seems to take new twists every few hours.  “Extra” broke news of one possible candidate, Anna Nicole Smith‘s bodyguard, who claims he had an intimate relationship with the former model.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Did she ever reveal to you who the father of that little girl is? 

ANDREW DENK, ANNA NICOLE‘S BODYGUARD:  She always told me she wanted to have kids with me. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  There is a possibility that you are the father of Dannielynn. 

DENK: There‘s always a possibility, yes. 


SCARBOROUGH:  For more on the relationship and those allegations, we‘re joined now by Anna Nicole Smith‘s bodyguard, Alexander Denk, and also his attorney, Cyrus Nownejad. 

Alexander, thank you so much for being with us.  If you could, just tell the audience how long you knew Anna Nicole Smith. 

DENK:  Hi, Joe.  First of all, thank you very much for having me on. 


DENK:  I knew Anna Nicole for five-and-a-half years.  And I had a very, very great relationship with Anna. 

SCARBOROUGH:  You had a close personal relationship with her? 

DENK:  Yes, I did.  I was first her chef on her show.  Then I became her bodyguard.  Then I became her personal trainer and really close friend and confidante. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And, also, obviously, since there‘s the possibility that you could be the father of her child, you also are saying you became her lover, also, correct? 

DENK:  I had a very close, intimate relationship.  I was intimate with Anna.  I don‘t keep tracks of time.  When you love somebody, you don‘t care about this stuff, you know?  You just love the person for who they are.  And there are so many people who are coming out and claiming to the father or not father.  For me, it‘s more important to bring out there to the world what a great person Anna was. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, I wanted to ask you about that.  What are we missing in all the media reports about Anna Nicole Smith?  Of course, this former “Playboy” Playmate, and this person that‘s taken almost cartoon character type of appearance with a lot of Americans.  What are we missing about the person that you knew for five years? 

DENK:  That‘s a very good question.  I really appreciate it.  Thank you for asking that. 

Anna was a very kind, good-hearted, very loyal person.  She did, for example—nobody ever mentioned about how much good she did for charities.  She did so much for the Make a Wish Foundation, for little children, so much for the gay community, for HIV and AIDS community.  She did so much charity she was giving, and nobody ever mentioned something like this.  I was there once for a barbecue when she did a barbecue for 40 children, which are homeless children, stuff like that nobody mentions ever.  You know, and I want to be here to tell the whole world what a nice and kind person she really was.  I think this is...

SCARBOROUGH:  What was the last time you talked to her? 

DENK:  Approximately three weeks ago. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And was she in good spirits? 

DENK:  I ask her, “Hi, how are you doing?”  She said, “Oh, I‘ll miss you.”  And I said, “I‘ll miss you, too.”  I said, “Are you in L.A.?”  “Yes, I‘m just here for two days, because of my court case.”  And I said, “How is your health?”  She said, “Oh, my health, you know, I don‘t want to talk on the phone about this.”  And I say, “How is your baby girl doing?”  She said, “She‘s so beautiful, you should see her.  I can‘t wait for you to come out and see us.”  “I will come out.”  I said, “I‘m going to go.  I‘m going to miss you.  I‘ll write you an e-mail.”  I said, “OK,” and that was it. 

SCARBOROUGH:  When she talked to you about coming out and seeing the baby, their baby daughter, did you think then or do you think now that maybe she was trying to tell you that you could have been the father? 

NOWNEJAD:  I think my client is basically—he‘s saying that he‘s not interested in commenting about the paternity suit or the fatherhood issues.  He did tell “Extra” that it is a possibility, and he just doesn‘t know. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Doesn‘t know.  So tonight, Cyrus, you‘re basically saying, for legal reasons, he‘s neither confirming or denying that it‘s a possibility, right? 

NOWNEJAD:  Exactly. 


Can you tell me—or do you all have any plans, Cyrus, to make any legal motions in the Bahamas or California or elsewhere to try to protect your client‘s interest as we move forward, whether it‘s possible paternity action or whether it‘s a possibility of child custody suits? 

NOWNEJAD:  Well, I‘ll tell you, I currently represent Mr. Denk in a lawsuit against TrimSpa for alternative reasons.  But that‘s probably the newest and latest motions that we‘ll be bringing on his behalf.  The other ones we‘re putting on hold for a while until we meet and...


DENK:  See what happens. 

NOWNEJAD:  See what happens. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Finally, Alexander, what do you think of Howard K.

Stern?  Do you think he may have been responsible for Anna Nicole‘s demise? 

DENK:  My personal opinion about Howard K. Stern—I know Howard K.  the same time I knew Anna, five-and-a-half years.  He was always very friendly to me, very forthcoming.  And he always called me up if he had any problems with Anna.  And so all these allegation coming about Howard, did he murder her and was he involved in a killing?  I think it‘s absurd, if you ask me.  I found him a very responsible person.  But what really happened, I do not know, because I was not there.  But as a—Howard, personal and private person, he was a very nice gentleman. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Good to know from somebody that knew both Howard and Anna Nicole.  Thank you so much, Alex.  Greatly appreciate it.  And thank you, Cyrus.  Appreciate you being here, also. 

And coming up next, she doesn‘t know chicken from tuna, but what makes Jessica Simpson think she can learn a foreign language in a few months?  Sacrebleu!  “Hollyweird” is next.  


SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, stop dancing on the table.  It‘s time for “Hollyweird.”

First up, Jessica Simpson, you know the singer may not know the difference because chicken and fish, but she recently told reporters she wanted to learn French in four months.  With us now to talk about it, “OK” magazine senior reporter Courtney Hazlett.  And still with us, Tom O‘Neil.

Courtney, I mean, that‘s pretty impressive.  I mean, learn French in four months from Jessica Simpson?  What‘s going on?

COURTNEY HAZLETT, “OK” MAGAZINE:  It‘s definitely ambitious.  She said, you know what?  It‘s time.  I want to learn French.  I want to learn a new language.  And, quite honestly, her rumored-to-be boyfriend, John Mayer, when asked about Jessica Simpson on the red carpet at the Grammys, he responded in Japanese.  So, you know, when her significant author is definitely stepping up the program here.  And let‘s be fair.  So many of us have said, “Jessica, you‘re not the brightest bulb in the box.  You need to kind of bone up here.”  Let‘s give her credit for trying.

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes, at least give her credit for trying.  But what‘s with the whole John Mayer thing?  I mean, they‘re together, they‘re not together, they come to my hometown, Pensacola, Florida.  They eat at Applebee‘s together.  I mean, that‘s pretty serious in the Redneck Riviera.

HAZLETT:  That‘s really serious stuff.  You know, once you‘re seen at Applebee‘s, it‘s all over, I guess they say.  But John Mayer is the kind of guy who—he‘s not in it for the spotlight.  He‘s not in a relationship so that it gets him more publicity.  If anything, he actually shies away from this sort of publicity.  People in his camp are saying, you know what?  This Jessica thing is not what we choose for him, but it is what it is.  So it‘s probably a good relationship for her.  He‘s very smart.  He‘s very talented.  And as a musician...

SCARBOROUGH:  Oh, whatever.  He‘s a dork.  He‘s a poseur.

Speaking of dorks and poseurs, actress Sharon Stone takes Berlin by storm.  While at an auction in Germany, her basic instinct was to call the audience “nasty.”


SHARON STONE, ACTRESS:  (INAUDIBLE) naughty, nasty, little Germans. 

That‘s why I keep coming back.


SCARBOROUGH:  Tom O‘Neil, why doesn‘t she just go away, please, leave, forever?

O‘NEIL:  I kind of know what you mean, Joe.  This was really, really bizarre, because she was there to conduct this auction.  And it‘s one thing if your joke flops and fails.  You know, move on.  But she just kept going on and on, taunting this audience, saying you‘re just naughty and nasty, and that‘s why I love you, and that‘s why I keep coming back.  It‘s almost as if she was saying, “I know you‘re all still secret Nazis, and I love it.  You know, whip men, beat me, put me in the oven.”  There‘s a sickness to this.  It‘s really weird. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Any suggestion that she may have been on medication provided to her by, oh, I don‘t know...

O‘NEIL:  Howard K. Stern? 


O‘NEIL:  There were allegations that she appeared glassy eyed, and slurry, and was kissing Richard Gere in a kind of sloppy, bizarre way throughout this whole thing, yes. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes, but, I mean, we all do that when Richard‘s around.  Hey, let‘s move on to “People” magazine reporting that Vince Vaughn was at Jennifer Aniston‘s birthday party comforting her over naked photos of the former “Friend” that‘s making their way around Europe.  Naked photos making their way around Europe?  And here I am stateside.  What‘s going on, Courtney?

HAZLETT:  There are topless photos of Jennifer Aniston going around Europe.  But you know what?  That‘s far different from some of the bottomless photos that are going around of other celebrities here in the United States. So, quite honestly, I don‘t think Jennifer Aniston has that much to worry about, where that‘s concerned. 

And in terms of Vince Vaughn showing up at her birthday party, I guess he was actually invited.  And they have claimed to remain friends afterwards, so more power to them.  I think it‘s great that they can be friends after their relationship. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, Courtney, I was going to ask.  I mean, they have not been to an Applebee‘s in Pensacola.  I don‘t know if they have in Pittsburgh or not.  Are these two together or not? 

HAZLETT:  They‘ve broken up.  Jennifer Aniston, we have sources who are saying, is actually dating somebody new, that she brought a friend to a Sting concert, and they‘re rumored to be dating.


HAZLETT:  You‘ve got two people who had a great relationship, and they‘re mature enough to say, “You know what?  It‘s over, we‘re moving on, but we can still be friends.” 

SCARBOROUGH:  Tom O‘Neil, they can still be friends.  A relationship that lasted a lunchtime, right? 

O‘NEIL:  That‘s right.  It‘s only our dirty, little minds that read more into this.  And what does that say about us? 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Thank you so much, Tom O‘Neil and Pittsburgh‘s favorite, Courtney Hazlett.  That‘s all the time we have for tonight in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.  We‘ll see you here tomorrow night.  Thanks for being here.



Copy: Content and programming copyright 2007 MSNBC.  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.  Transcription Copyright 2007 Voxant, Inc. ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user‘s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon MSNBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.


Watch Scarborough Country each weeknight at 9 p.m. ET


Discussion comments