updated 4/23/2004 12:26:43 PM ET 2004-04-23T16:26:43

Guests:  Stacy Brown, Jim Thomas, Dean Johnson, John Burris, Jeanine Pirro, Rachel King, Jan Larue, Derek Newman

ANNOUNCER:  Now THE ABRAMS REPORT.  Here is Dan Abrams.

DAN ABRAMS, HOST:  Hi, everyone.  Michael Jackson indicted.  What is his family saying, and is law enforcement relieved?  How much time is Jackson really facing?  If convicted, it will be nearly impossible for him to avoid prison time.  We‘re going to cover all of those issues. 

Victims of crime are much closer to having a host of new rights today, from guaranteeing them a voice in court to notifying them about any public proceeding involving the crime or the criminal.  The Senate overwhelmingly passed the bill today.  So why is the ACLU and other critics saying it‘s not a good idea?  We‘ll ask them. 

And broadcasters beginning to fight back against the FCC crackdown, including rallying behind that man after they revised their opinion and said that he made a comment that was indecent.  And also, it seems that they may be going after some cable stations as well.  Is the FCC going overboard? 

But first, it‘s official.  Michael Jackson indicted.  A California grand jury last night handing up the indictment.  Remember, in December the D.A. charged Jackson with a total of nine felony counts.  Seven counts lewd and lascivious conduct with a child, two counts, administering an intoxicating agent to a child.  Jackson will return to court on April 30 for his arraignment, where he is expected to plead not guilty. 

All right.  So everyone‘s been saying that as a legal matter, no surprise.  Fine, but what‘s the reaction from both the Jackson family and law enforcement, some of whom are the same people who were involved when the grand jury fell apart in 1993? 

Former Santa Barbara County Sheriff, Jim Thomas, he led the investigation into the ‘93 charges and worked closely with D.A. Tom Sneddon.  He‘s now an MSNBC analyst.  And Jackson family friend and NBC analyst Stacy Brown, who‘s been in contact with the Jackson family since the indictment. 

First question to Stacy.  Stacy, you know, I know everyone keeps saying no surprise, no surprise.  But still, the idea of an official indictment has got to have had an impact on some of the members of Michael Jackson‘s family. 

STACY BROWN, JACKSON FAMILY FRIEND:  Well, no doubt, Dan, it was a jolt to the family, although they somewhat expected it.  It still was a jolt.  I spoke to Mrs. Jackson.  I spoke to Jermaine and Firpo Carr (ph), the family spokesperson, and other members of the family, and everyone is really upset.  They feel, again, as we‘ve been hearing all along, that that this is unjust, that Michael is innocent, and they are standing behind him.  They feel that they are ready to go to court...

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN:  ... ready to go to court to finally once and for all prove his innocence. 

ABRAMS:  Stacy, were they holding out hope?  I mean yes, everyone is saying we expected it.  But were they still hoping that maybe this grand jury is going say, you know what, there‘s not enough evidence here.  In your conversations with them before the indictment, were they still holding out some hope that maybe this case was just never going to go to trial? 

BROWN:  That‘s a great question, Dan.  I was actually on the phone

with Mrs. Jackson, Michael‘s mother, prior to the indictment being formally

handed down.  We were talking as we were awaiting—when it was imminent

that there would be word on whether or not he would be indicted.  And there

was a lot of hope within Mrs. Jackson.  She expressed that, that, you know,

·         she asked me do I think that he‘s going to you know get by without an indictment.  She asked me that point blank.  And I said, you know, to be frankly honest, it doesn‘t appear that way.  But, you know, let‘s see what happens.  And yes, so she was hopeful. 

ABRAMS:  All right.  So Jim Thomas, on the other side, you were involved in the 1993 case, where they convened a grand jury.  You had done this long investigation.  You had worked long and hard on this.  Then the accuser won‘t come to the grand jury because he cuts a deal.  I‘ve got to believe that for the people involved in that ‘93 case, you know, they‘ve got to be going, all right, finally, we‘ve got this going forward. 

JIM THOMAS, FMR. SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFF:  Yes, Dan, you know in 1993 you know I wouldn‘t be telling the truth if I didn‘t tell you that there was frustration that at least the case did not get to trial.  When it gets to trial that may be a different matter.  But at least now, after the grand jury indictment, we know, barring a 995 motion, which would challenge the grand jury indictment, if that doesn‘t come through, we know that there will be a trial this time.  And that‘s what the people of the state of California are asking for and that‘s what they‘re working for. 

ABRAMS:  But now just bring me into the personal side of this.  I mean you know everyone‘s saying that Tom Sneddon—some people are saying Tom Sneddon had this vendetta that he‘s been out to get Michael Jackson.  Even assuming that that‘s not the case for a moment, I‘ve still got to believe that he is breathing a sigh of relief.  I mean, again we talk about oh, yes grand juries will indict anything.  Yes, I know that.  I know that.  But still there‘s got to be a sense of relief on Tom Sneddon‘s part after all the work and his own credibility that he has put into this case. 

THOMAS:  Well, I know there‘s no vendetta.  But that aside, any type of a procedure that you go through or any process that deals with the law that you get passed and is in your favor, there‘s got to be a sigh of relief.  But I think Tom Sneddon went into this grand jury knowing that he was going to receive an indictment.  I think he planned to go through this grand jury process all along.  It worked to his advantage.  And I think that he‘s prepared for any...

(CROSSTALK)

THOMAS:  ... challenges to the grand jury process. 

ABRAMS:  He probably thought in ‘93, though, it was going to go through as well, right? 

THOMAS:  Well, not necessarily.  Because in 1993, when there was a grand jury, there was still no complaining accuser, or one that would testify. 

ABRAMS:  Well yes.

THOMAS:  So it would have had to been basically on circumstantial evidence which we know wasn‘t going to carry it. 

ABRAMS:  All right.  No, but I meant that when he started the grand jury process, he was hopeful.  All right, let me ask you, Jim, in terms of what happens now.  Quite a circus there, right, last time Michael Jackson was in court.  Now he‘s going to be in court we expect on April the 30th.  You know your boys, the guys that you were the boss of for a long time have got to be looking back at those tapes and saying (UNINTELLIGIBLE) how did we let the whole dancing incident happen?  How did we let this get out of hand?  Are things going to be different this time? 

THOMAS:  Yes, you know because I believe the defense team is asking the same question.  I believe that neither law enforcement nor the defense team will allow that to occur this time.  The vehicle was on public property.  So as long as it‘s on public property, Michael Jackson had every right in the world to get up on top of that car and do what he did.  I think this time, however, they‘ll plan it to where he gets out under the jurisdiction of the court, which can set a decorum order.  Aside from that, I don‘t think his defense team will allow him to do that again.  Because I do not think that that was a very flattering picture of Michael Jackson.  I‘m not sure that that‘s the essence that they wanted to portray that day...

ABRAMS:  No, I think you‘re absolutely right.  All right, Stacy and Jim, if you can just stay with us because coming up, I want to bring in the legal team. 

If Michael Jackson is convicted, how much time is he really facing?  Could he escape with no prison time?  Again, we‘ve got some new details to report.  And also, we‘re going to ask the question, is the defense even going to challenge the grand jury? 

Plus, Michael‘s sister Janet and her halftime peep show seems to ignited a crackdown on indecency.  Now even cable channels could be feeling the heat.  But with singer Bono (ph) now under the gun as well, the question—is the FCC going too far? 

Your e-mails abramsreport@msnbc.com.  Please include your name and where you‘re writing from. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ABRAMS:  Coming up, if Michael Jackson is convicted even of one of the charges against him, he‘s apparently going to have a tough time avoiding prison.  We‘ll look at just what he could face and tell you about some new details the grand jury may have heard about, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ABRAMS:  We are back.  Continuing our coverage of the indictment of Michael Jackson.  Last night we revealed three specific incidents that the accuser‘s younger brother says that he witnessed.  Jackson allegedly touching the boy inappropriately, once while riding in a golf cart and twice at Jackson‘s Neverland Ranch bedroom.  There may have been others as well.  But these are the three we know about for certain. 

The brother telling the psychologist—telling this to psychologist Stanley Katz.  Tonight we‘ve got one more detail not reported as far as we know anywhere else of one alleged bedroom incident.  Quoting from the psychologist‘s report and his interview of the 12-year-old younger brother.  And I quote—“Michael and the boy were both on top of the covers, this is at Neverland, Michael was wearing a T-shirt and briefs.”  That‘s when the brother says Jackson put his right hand inside his own shorts, began—quote—“rubbing himself while his left hand was on the boy‘s crotch.” 

The brother says the alleged victim was drunk and at times passing out.  So some very serious allegations presumably made to the grand jury.  Question—was this sort of specificity what swayed the grand jurors?  How much time does Jackson actually face? 

Let‘s bring in our legal time—former California prosecutor and current defense attorney Dean Johnson, California criminal defense attorney John Burris, and Westchester County New York District Attorney Jeanine Pirro.  All right, on question one, Dean, I know you‘ve done a lot of research on the law in this.  Bring us through the possible sentences.  How much prison time Michael Jackson is facing realistically if he‘s convicted of one or all of the counts. 

DEAN JOHNSON, FORMER PROSECUTOR:  Well, I‘ll give you a few ranges, Dan.  If someone is convicted of basic plain vanilla child molestation under section 288 of the penal code, the maximum sentence for that one count would be eight years in the state prison.  If we assume, for example, that the indictment contains the same charges and allegations as the complaint that was originally filed, worst case scenario, resolving all the facts against Michael Jackson, he could be looking at as much as 21 years, four months in state prison.  That‘s the outside. 

ABRAMS:  But as a practical matter, Dean, we always talk about the maximum. 

JOHNSON:  Right.

ABRAMS:  But as a practical matter, what are we talking about in terms of possible prison time? 

JOHNSON:  As a practical matter, you could see—I would think anywhere from two to 10 years, depending on how the facts fall out.  And some of the details that we‘ve been referring to and that have been trickling out slowly give me pause, because...

(CROSSTALK)

JOHNSON:  ... they can change the nature of the case... 

JOHN BURRIS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY:  I think, though—I‘m sorry.

ABRAMS:  Go ahead, John. 

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS:  I think what happens here is that given what Dean has said, and I agree with the outside number, you really could give an aggravated term of eight years and concurrent sentence for everything else.  And I say that because once you go to the aggravated term, you‘ve given a significant punishment, and then you can run everything else concurrently.  Eight years is a significant period of time.  You‘d have to do almost six years in prison.  There‘s not many options for him not to get out, because you‘ve got to go through a certain kind of—range of options to do it.  That won‘t happen.  So I think he‘s probably looking at eight years practically speaking, with six years in custody. 

ABRAMS:  All right, so we‘re talking...

JOHNSON:  Eight years is not out of the range. 

ABRAMS:  All right.

JOHNSON:  Remember, one more important thing, though.  These details that come out, such as this alleged incident which maybe could very well be construed as masturbation.  In California we have what we call special allegations, certain factual circumstances of which that is one, which would preclude any probationary sentence.  Then we‘re looking at a state prison sentence.  Eight years is, I would think, possibly a reasonable estimate.  Remember also...

ABRAMS:  OK.  All right...

JOHNSON:  ... a 288...

ABRAMS:  ... hang on a sec.  Hang on a sec.  Let me just move on for a second.  All right, Jeanine, let me ask you about the grand jury.  A lot of specifics coming out now that we‘re learning about, about exactly what was said to these grand jurors.  We just laid out another specific statement.  Do you think that‘s what swayed them is the specificity?  It was here.  I saw him do this.  I saw him do that.  Do you think that that‘s what made it an easy decision for the grand jurors? 

JEANINE PIRRO, WESTCHESTER COUNTY D.A.:  Well you know, Dan, since the grand jury is a secret proceeding, I mean we really don‘t know what was said.  But I don‘t think there‘s any question but that Tom Sneddon would not have gone forward with this case based upon a one-on-one.  There are too many issues here in terms of Michael Jackson and the kind of difficult prosecution he‘d face.  There had to be some kind of corroboration or circumstantial evidence that pointed to the fact that it was more than just the child saying it happened.  So it makes perfect sense that there would be an eyewitness, that there would be some evidence corroborating, whether it‘s in the form of letters, videos, DVDs, specific information.  But clearly, if you have an eyewitness to this, then you‘ve got a case that the grand jury could not, not indict. 

ABRAMS:  And...

BURRIS:  Well, the question of the eyewitness, if it‘s his brother, the question then becomes credibility with the witness.  I do think you will still get an indictment, but I don‘t know that necessarily strengthened it so much that it becomes an overwhelming case...

PIRRO:  Oh come on John, you and I both know that in child sexual assault cases, the word of one child is one thing and you can kind of dance around it.  But when you have two children, the jury will use their common sense in determining...

BURRIS:  I‘m only saying...

PIRRO:  ... whether or not they‘re going to believe...

BURRIS:  Jeanine...

PIRRO:  ... not just one, but two. 

BURRIS:  Jeanine, I‘m only saying that when they come from the same family, I don‘t know that that‘s two. 

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS:  If it was a third person outside the family, disinterested party, you would be right. 

PIRRO:  Does it make them less credible, John...

BURRIS:  It can...

PIRRO:  Who else...

BURRIS:  Actually...

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS:  Obviously...

PIRRO:  ... sibling would be in the bedroom...

BURRIS:  ... that‘s not the point.  The point is...

PIRRO:  It is.

BURRIS:  ... can you believe this particular witness or not.  And if that witness has an interest and it‘s a family member per se, and when did they tell that story, I don‘t see that as the same level of independence as another person.  That doesn‘t mean he‘s not telling the truth. 

PIRRO:  Right.

BURRIS:  It just means he‘s more subject to significant cross examination and the credibility—I don‘t think the grand jury would not indict because of that.  I think the grand jury takes it at face value.  They‘re not the judge and the jury.  They just want to know if there‘s enough evidence for the indictment. 

ABRAMS:  Let me ask Jim Thomas—Jim, do we know of any physical evidence that corroborates any—either of the stories from the boys? 

THOMAS:  Specifically, no, because the documents have been so redacted from the judge and what he‘s passed around.  But we do know that a tremendous amount of evidence was taken from Neverland.  Specifically, in the bedroom area, and—as well as a lot of C.D.s, a lot of hard drives and computers. 

PIRRO:  But, Jim, the fact that Jackson was arrested or they filed the charges two days later, doesn‘t that signal to you that it was the execution of the warrant that took them to the next level? 

(CROSSTALK)

PIRRO:  Because they could have arrested Michael if it was based just upon the victim‘s statement and the brother.  But having done the search warrant, it seems that they reviewed the evidence and then charged. 

ABRAMS:  John...

BURRIS:  I would not necessarily agree with that.  Two days given the amount of evidence (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and I don‘t even know if it‘s evidence.  It‘s item that they took from that place.  Evidence is whether or not it‘s going to be usable or not.  I wouldn‘t say—necessarily say just because of that.  I think that once they executed that search warrant, their hand was made...

PIRRO:  No...

BURRIS:  ... and they had to go forward. 

PIRRO:  No, absolutely not. 

BURRIS:  Well, I disagree with you on that.  I just think that they would have.

PIRRO:  We disagree. 

ABRAMS:  All right.

BURRIS:  OK...

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS:  And it doesn‘t mean there was evidence though.  It doesn‘t mean they found discoverable evidence...

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS:  ... and usable evidence. 

ABRAMS:  I want to very quickly just bring up another issue, and Dean Johnson I‘m going to ask you about this. 

JOHNSON:  Sure.

ABRAMS:  The defense has an opportunity now to review the grand jury testimony and make a decision.  Do they want to challenge it?  Do they want to go—and we keep—everyone is saying oh they‘re going to challenge it.  They‘re not.  They‘re going to say they didn‘t present enough exculpatory evidence, as they should have.  But, isn‘t there a risk for the defense in doing that, in that they then have to tip their hand as to what their case is?  They‘ll have to say they didn‘t present this.  They didn‘t present that and they didn‘t present this.

JOHNSON:  Well, not really...

(CROSSTALK)

JOHNSON:  ... because you have to—what you have to do in making that motion, which is called the 995 motion, is you say that the prosecutor did not advise the jury of certain exculpatory evidence.  Presumably this is going to be exculpatory evidence of which the prosecutor was already aware and the argument would be they could have told the grand jury about this, but they didn‘t.  Therefore, we get a dismissal.  So that—for the time being...

(CROSSTALK)

JOHNSON:  ... that means game over. 

ABRAMS:  (UNINTELLIGIBLE) becomes public. 

PIRRO:  It becomes public...

(CROSSTALK)

PIRRO:  ... but you know, what they can do is they can question the sufficiency of the evidence without laying out their theory of the defense.  And that‘s...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Right.

PIRRO:  ... when I was a judge that was one of the things that I reviewed when an indictment was handed down. 

ABRAMS:  So the judge reviews it. 

PIRRO:  The judge reviews...

ABRAMS:  Yes.

PIRRO:  ... whether there was sufficient evidence to charge. 

BURRIS:  I don‘t think...

JOHNSON:  ... exactly...

BURRIS:  ... they have to reveal their hand at all...

JOHNSON:  ... the standard here is any evidence that might reasonably tend to negate the guilt of the person accused...

ABRAMS:  All right.  The bottom line is...

JOHNSON:  ... so they can...

ABRAMS:  ... bottom line is they‘ve got...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  ... that‘s a long shot motion anyway...

BURRIS:  And it‘s...

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS:  ... it‘s typically a long shot motion. 

ABRAMS:  Yes.  No, I...

BURRIS:  ... you do have to do.  I don‘t know that I would...

ABRAMS:  Very quickly, John.  I‘m out of time.

BURRIS:  It‘s a long shot motion.  They can make that motion.  They will probably make it without dealing with the whole question of exculpatory evidence (UNINTELLIGIBLE) then it would be helpful.

ABRAMS:  All right, Jim Thomas, Stacy Brown, thanks.  Dean, John and Jeanine are going to stay.  It‘s all these—I‘m like wait a sec.  Who‘s leaving?  Who‘s staying?  All right.  So, John, Jeanine and Dean are going to stay with us. 

Coming up, a new bill passed in the Senate would guarantee victims of crimes the chance to speak out in court among other rights.  What‘s wrong with that?  The ACLU is not happy about it, saying it will be unfair to defend it.  Why? 

“The Sopranos”, a lot of nasty language in that show.  Well, if some get their way, they may have to forget about it as part of a new indecency crackdown.  We‘ll debate.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JON KYLE ®, ARIZONA:  While there are statutes in states, and even some state constitutional provisions that purportedly guarantee that a victim will not be denied access to the courtroom, it is still the case today that the victims, the victims‘ families, can‘t even go into the courtroom.  The defendant is there.  The defendant‘s family is there seated in reserved row seats.  But the victim and the victim‘s family cannot be present.  That‘s fundamentally wrong. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ABRAMS:  Senator Jon Kyle of Arizona talking about the need to give crime victims more rights in the justice system.  So many times we hear victims or their families say that they have fewer rights than the accused.  Well, today the U.S Senate moved to change that.  Ninety-six to one the Senate passed a measure giving more rights to federal crime victims.  The bill expected to sail through Congress and then to be signed by the president. 

Guarantees victims the right—quote—“to be reasonably protected

from the accused, the proceedings to be held without unreasonable delay, to

be notified of and heard in public proceedings, such as pleas, sentencing,

reprieve, pardon hearings, to be notified of any release or escape—gees

·         of the accused.  To confer with the government attorney in the case.  To full and timely restitution from the convicted offender. 

Sounds good, right?  Rachel King, an attorney for the ACLU says not so fast.  Ms. King, thank you very much for coming on the program.  Appreciate it. 

RACHEL KING, ACLU LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL:  You‘re welcome. 

ABRAMS:  All right.  So, what‘s wrong with finally having our justice system not only viewed through the eyes of the defendant, but also, through the eyes of the victim? 

KING:  Well, Dan, there were a lot of us actually that were breathing a sigh of relief today when this bill passed the Senate.  Because the Senate had been considering for the last three weeks a constitutional amendment, which would have enshrined these so-called rights in the federal constitution, and this caused a great deal of concern...

ABRAMS:  Right.  That‘s not happening though.  They‘ve already decided not to pursue a constitutional amendment.  There are a lot of issues associated with...

KING:  But Dan, if you don‘t—you have to take this in context.  The reason why the senators voted for it was because they didn‘t want to have to vote on a constitutional amendment. 

ABRAMS:  Oh, come on.  Come on.  No, no...

KING:  There was no debate. 

ABRAMS:  Oh...

KING:  There was no...

ABRAMS:  So you think that the reason that they voted—the only reason they voted...

KING:  Dan, Dan...

ABRAMS:  ... for it was to avoid a constitutional—let‘s focus on the...

KING:  ... that‘s absolutely what happened. 

(CROSSTALK)

KING:  Have you been following this issue, Dan?  Have you been following this issue...

ABRAMS:  Yes, then what?

KING:  ... then you would know...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  So you‘re saying...

KING:  ... that that‘s exactly why...

ABRAMS:  All right.

KING:  ... they brought it up. 

ABRAMS:  ... if they had never mentioned...

KING:  Because Senator Kyle...

ABRAMS:  Let me ask you this.  If they had never mentioned the word constitutional amendment, you‘re telling me this bill never would have passed?  Even though it passed 96-1, wouldn‘t have passed.

KING:  The bill never would have been brought up if they had had the votes to pass the constitutional amendment.  They didn‘t even have the votes to get cloture.  They never...

ABRAMS:  All right...

KING:  ... this idea was proposed two days ago, Dan. 

ABRAMS:  All right, but look...

KING:  This idea was promoted two days ago.  None of the senators have had time to read it.  There was no committee process on it.  Nobody heard anything of it...

ABRAMS:  You‘re putting up smoke and mirrors. 

KING:  No, I‘m not.  You‘re putting up smoke and mirrors.

ABRAMS:  You are.  I‘m trying...

KING:  You‘re not talking about the story here. 

ABRAMS:  ... to address the facts.

KING:  The story here is the Senate...

(CROSSTALK)

KING:  ... was trying to amend the constitution...

ABRAMS:  OK.

KING:  ... and you‘re not telling people what the real story was. 

ABRAMS:  But who cares what they were going to do?  Let‘s talk about what they did.  I know...

KING:  What they did is they passed...

ABRAMS:  ... you want to talk about what they didn‘t do.  And I want to talk about what they did do.  Let‘s talk about what they did do and that is...

KING:  You don‘t want to put this in context, Dan...

ABRAMS:  All right.  You‘ve now put...

KING:  ... which is why all those people...

ABRAMS:  ... you‘ve now put it into context...

KING:  ... voted for that statute, because...

ABRAMS:  You‘ve now put it into context. 

KING:  OK.

ABRAMS:  You‘ve now mentioned it, you‘ve mentioned it three times. 

Now can we actually move on to discussing what they did pass?  Can we do that?  All right...

KING:  Sure. 

ABRAMS:  ... let‘s ask you a question, which is the question I asked you at the beginning.  What‘s wrong with changing the way we look at the justice system and not only looking at it through the eyes of the defendant, but also, looking at it through the eyes of the victim as well? 

KING:  Nothing is wrong with that.  In fact, that‘s already protected in federal law.  It‘s already protected in the state law.  It‘s already protected in 33 state constitutions.  Nothing is wrong...

ABRAMS:  So what‘s wrong with the legislation? 

KING:  Because they put into place some provisions that will come up against the rights of the accused.

ABRAMS:  Tell me which ones. 

KING:  And prosecutors, judges and victims have concerns about this. 

ABRAMS:  Tell...

KING:  It‘s not just the ACLU that is concerned about this. 

ABRAMS:  I know.  Look, I know it‘s not just the ACLU.  You are representing a group of critics.  I don‘t think you‘re certainly not representing the majority of victims, but you are representing...

KING:  We are representing a lot of victims. 

ABRAMS:  Yes, look, come on, you‘re not actually going to suggest...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  Wait.  Hang on—you‘re not going to actually suggest...

KING:  I actually am going to suggest...

ABRAMS:  Let me finish the question.  You‘re not actually going to suggest to me that your position, you believe, represents the majority of victims in this country. 

KING:  We represent...

ABRAMS:  Come on.

KING:  ... every single battered woman‘s organization in this country...

ABRAMS:  OK...

KING:  ... and I would say...

(CROSSTALK)

KING:  ... they are the majority of the victims...

ABRAMS:  All right...

KING:  ... in crime, yes.  So I would say we do. 

ABRAMS:  Oh, wait.  Battered—sorry—battered women are the majority of victims of crime? 

KING:  Yes.  The majority of crime...

(CROSSTALK)

KING:  ... assault, and homicide is by family members.

ABRAMS:  OK.  Now, let‘s—now we can actually talk about some interesting points.  You made an interesting point in your pre interview about how you think that this can be turned.  Why don‘t you explain that to us, as to how you think that this can be misused against victims of domestic violence.

KING:  It‘s not how I think.  It‘s how the domestic violence groups have come out en masse against this.  Because it gives the so-called victim in a crime rights at the point in time when an accused is presumed to be innocent under our constitution. 

ABRAMS:  Right.

KING:  And then what happens in battered women‘s cases often is that the battered women themselves ends up being the victims.  They end up—I mean, they end...

ABRAMS:  You mean they end up killing their husbands or their spouse or whoever...

KING:  Or using force to defend themselves or using—winding up being falsely accused. 

ABRAMS:  Well, wait, wait...

KING:  So they end up as the defendants in the system...

ABRAMS:  Wait, wait.  So you‘re saying...

(CROSSTALK)

KING:  ... then the accuser...

ABRAMS:  ... you‘re saying all the people who are falsely...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  ... you‘re talking about all the people who are falsely accused, right?

KING:  No.  I‘m saying it‘s a variety of things.  Sometimes people are falsely accused, and sometimes people use force to defend themselves and end up being charged defendants. 

ABRAMS:  OK, but...

KING:  Either way, the person who‘s been abusing them all of a sudden is considered the—quote—“victim” and has these rights...

ABRAMS:  But if they kill someone, then their family—I mean—people go to prison for domestic—who are victims of domestic violence because they responded with too much force and prosecutors charged them for killing someone. 

KING:  That‘s right.  And often, they shouldn‘t be there...

ABRAMS:  Well, that‘s not your decision to make. 

KING:  ... because they were using legitimate self defense...

ABRAMS:  That‘s not your decision to make.  That‘s the prosecutor‘s decision to make...

KING:  I‘m just telling you the...

ABRAMS:  No...

KING:  ... reason why they oppose it.  I‘m trying to explain it to you. 

ABRAMS:  But you‘re not...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  ... you‘re not actually.  You know what?  I‘m going to ask you to stick around—maybe I‘m all wrong.  I‘m going to bring in our legal panel on this.  Jeanine Pirro is a huge—she has been prosecuting domestic violence cases for years.  She will tell me what she thinks about this.  Maybe I got it all wrong.

Also, coming up, the HBO series “The Sopranos”, could it be the next target of the FCC?  Why are even cable shows now coming under scrutiny? 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ABRAMS:  We‘re back.  We‘re talking about the Senate passing a new measure today, 96-1, guaranteeing victims of federal crimes certain rights, like the right to be present at the defendant‘s trial, speaking at their attacker‘s sentencing. 

I‘m rejoined by Rachel King, an attorney for the ACLU.  They oppose this particular legislation.  And our legal panel, former California prosecutor and defense attorney Dean Johnson, criminal defense attorney John Burris, and Westchester County D.A. Jeanine Pirro, who actually started one of the first domestic violence units in the country back in 1978.  She‘s the author of “To Punish and Protect”.

All right.  Jeanine, you‘ve been listening to my conversation with Ms.  King.  She‘s saying that this particular law actually hurts victims of domestic violence and she says that all the domestic violence groups are on their side on this. 

PIRRO:  Well you know I can‘t imagine that.  Because—and Rachel, I‘m not sure what domestic violence victims you represent, because I‘ve been prosecuting these cases for 25 years.  And I don‘t know of one battered woman who doesn‘t want to know when the accuser is going to be in court, whether there‘s going to be a plea bargain.  I don‘t know of one battered woman who doesn‘t want to be reasonably notified of court dates or protected by the system.  In fact, what you‘re talking about is a minute number of women who end up killing their husbands.  A minute...

KING:  No, I‘m not. 

PIRRO:  ... percentage of...

KING:  I‘m talking about the national network to end domestic violence. 

(CROSSTALK)

PIRRO:  Let me just finish my point.  The bottom line here...

KING:  Well don‘t say what I‘m talking about when you don‘t know. 

PIRRO:  ... is that—I‘m going to finish my point.  The battered women in this country along with all crime victims deserve the protection of federal legislation.  And even, yes, a constitutional amendment, but we won‘t go there. 

BURRIS:  But Dan...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  Hang on.  Wait. 

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  Let her respond. 

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  Let Ms. King respond. 

PIRRO:  We belong to a...

ABRAMS:  Hang on.  Let...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  Let Ms. King respond.  Hang on Jeanine...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  Let Ms. King respond.

KING:  This isn‘t going to affect any of those cases, because all those cases...

PIRRO:  It isn‘t? 

KING:  It‘s not going to affect state law whatsoever.  It only affects federal law.  As you should know, they don‘t you know prosecute these kinds of crimes...

PIRRO:  Oh, oh...

KING:  ... at the federal level.

PIRRO:  ... so you‘re against crime victims‘ rights that won‘t affect battered women because of battered women.  You yourself...

(CROSSTALK)

PIRRO:  ... are saying it doesn‘t affect them.  What about the crime victim who never chose to be a victim in the first place who was entitled to protection?  And whether...

BURRIS:  Dan...

PIRRO:  ... it‘s a federal offense or not, a battered woman or not, is not the issue.  It‘s about a system that recognizes the rights of victims, as opposed to the myriad of books we have with the rights of criminal defendants. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  But you know...

ABRAMS:  Let me let...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Dan, Dan...

ABRAMS:  Hang on.  Hang on.  John Burris, go ahead.

BURRIS:  This bill is not limited to domestic violence cases.  The problem I have with the bill is that generally, when you start having victims determining—speaking at motions, there may be times when victims should not be present in motions.  Maybe they should not be—they should not have the veto power...

ABRAMS:  No one is talking about veto...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  No one is...

BURRIS:  No, no, no one is saying that...

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS:  No, they‘re saying...

PIRRO:  ... that power.  It‘s the right to be present at public trial...

BURRIS:  But they‘re saying that they have a right...

PIRRO:  ... and court proceedings.  They have that right. 

BURRIS:  No question you have a right to be present.  I‘m saying there may be circumstances where they should not be present. 

ABRAMS:  Why? 

BURRIS:  That is to say in a motion hearing where the credibility of that victim pay be called into question. 

PIRRO:  We‘re not talking about child victims here...

BURRIS:  No, we‘re talking about...

PIRRO:  ... where credibility is determined...

BURRIS:  ... we‘re talking about...

PIRRO:  ... by the court in advance. 

BURRIS:  ... the rights of the defendant.  And there be times—I‘m only saying that there may be times...

ABRAMS:  John...

BURRIS:  ... when the victim should not be present...

ABRAMS:  ... let me ask you...

BURRIS:  ... in one of these hearings. 

ABRAMS:  Let me ask you the broad question, John, and this is the one that I asked Ms. King a moment ago.  And that is what‘s wrong with changing the rules?  I mean look, our system looks at—we look at the justice system through the eyes of the defendant.  And I understand that, because when you‘re talking about taking away someone‘s freedom with the power of the government against them, we‘ve created a system, which is very defendant-protected.  OK.  All this bill is doing is saying here is another way to look at it as well, which is to say we‘re not going to just look at it through the eyes of the defendant.  We‘re going to look at it through the eyes of the victim and say we are going to give them certain rights.  And you know what?  It‘s true. 

BURRIS:  And you know something...

ABRAMS:  It means that defendants will not quite be able to keep people out at certain times if they want to.  It means that they may not be able to avoid having the victim present in court.  It‘s true.  But what‘s wrong with that? 

BURRIS:  There‘s nothing wrong with that on its face.  I support that.  I‘m just saying if you look at the bill, there are areas where I think that it‘s troubling to me.  And when you start saying the victim has a right to say something about unreasonable delay, well, what does that mean?  When do they get to come in and say this case can‘t be continued? 

PIRRO:  Because...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Dan...

BURRIS:  ... the point is you don‘t know...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Dan...

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Dan, I think John...

BURRIS:  There are other points...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Dan...

BURRIS:  There are other points as well. 

ABRAMS:  Dean Johnson. 

JOHNSON:  Dan, I think John will agree with me.  We‘ve lived with a very similar statute here in...

BURRIS:  Absolutely.

JOHNSON:  ... California for almost 15 years.  As far as we know, there have been no serious cases ever to come up to suggest that the respect for victims‘ rights and victims presence in the courtroom has ever undermined a defendant‘s right to a fair trial.  I was one of the people who—when I was prosecuting homicides, actually litigated some of the first victims‘ rights issues.  The right of a homicide victim‘s family to be present in the courtroom.  It‘s an important right.  It‘s a right that all crime victims and their families want.  And...

ABRAMS:  All right.

JOHNSON:  ... and it can coexist and does coexist...

ABRAMS:  Ms. King...

JOHNSON:  ... with the right to a fair trial. 

ABRAMS:  All right.  If there were one provision here you could take out, which one would it be and why? 

KING:  The provision about having a say when the case goes to trial because that...

BURRIS:  Yes, that bothers me as well. 

KING:  ... may force cases to go to trial when a defendant isn‘t ready.

BURRIS:  Right.

KING:  Innocent people are convicted all the time. 

PIRRO:  But that‘s what judges are far...

KING:  ... it could also...

PIRRO:  Judges make that...

(CROSSTALK)

KING:  ... would you please let me finish a point please?

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  Let her finish.  Hang on Jeanine.  Hang on...

KING:  Could you please let me finish a point?

ABRAMS:  Go ahead Ms. King.  Yes.

KING:  It could also make the state go to trial when it‘s not ready to go to trial...

(CROSSTALK)

KING:  ... and they might not be able to get a conviction of a guilty person. 

ABRAMS:  But the suggestion there is that somehow these victims are going to have such an overwhelming influence on these judges that they‘re not going to be able to think straight anymore. 

BURRIS:  Well...

KING:  I think judges, especially elected judges, are very, very...

(CROSSTALK)

KING:  ... swayed by what victims do, yes. 

ABRAMS:  All right, so let‘s just...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  But at least...

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS:  ... any right whatsoever...

ABRAMS:  Hang on. 

BURRIS:  ... and any view that says anything about when the case is going to trial.

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS:  They ought to be present.  They have a right to be present...

ABRAMS:  What‘s the matter with letting them have a say, John?  No one is saying...

BURRIS:  It‘s not a question of do they have a say...

ABRAMS:  Yes it is...

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS:  How significant...

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS:  ... do they have a say—I don‘t think they have a right to have a say, period. 

PIRRO:  Oh, that‘s outrageous...

(CROSSTALK)

JOHNSON:  John, John, what we‘re talking about...

(CROSSTALK)

JOHNSON:  ... here is...

PIRRO:  The only reason we‘re in a criminal courtroom is because a criminal chose to victimize a victim.  That victim has...

BURRIS:  Well that doesn‘t necessarily...

PIRRO:  ... the right to be there. 

BURRIS:  ... that at all.  But the victim...

PIRRO:  That victim has the right...

BURRIS:  ... but the defendant has a right...

PIRRO:  ... and no one other than the prosecutor...

BURRIS:  ... to decide and the prosecutor...

PIRRO:  ... and the judge are making the calls...

BURRIS:  The victim should not say when...

PIRRO:  ... as to when they can go forward...

BURRIS:  ... it‘s going to go to trial...

ABRAMS:  All right.

JOHNSON:  Dan, what we‘re talking about here is preventing unreasonable delays and unreasonable means the judge can consider all the surrounding circumstances, including the interest of the victim and the...

ABRAMS:  I have to tell you, I went through this point by point.  I didn‘t just look at the entirety.  I looked at this point by point.  I‘ve got to tell you, there‘s nothing that particularly troubles me in this new bill, and I think it‘s a good thing that it passed.  We will follow it.  Rachel King, thanks for putting up with the panel and with me.  Dean Johnson, John Burris and Jeanine Pirro, you guys are used to it. 

Coming up, is the FCC going too far now?  Are cable programs like the HBO series “The Sopranos” the next target? 

Plus the story we brought you last night.  A Florida couple being forced to testify against their daughter or face jail time.  Many of you had some surprising reactions.  Your e-mails coming up later in the program.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ABRAMS:  We‘re back in the wake of the Janet Jackson, now infamous wardrobe malfunction during the Super Bowl, the FCC has begun some sweeping reforms, cracking down on indecency.  Going so far as reversing a decision that initially said they would take no action against NBC and U2‘s lead singer Bono for this comment at the live broadcast of the 2003 Golden Globes. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  That‘s really, really (EXPLETIVE DELETED) brilliant and really, really, great. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ABRAMS:  Now they‘re saying that was a violation.  Is the FCC overstepping its bounds?  Chairman Michael Powell told the Convention of Broadcasters this week he would like to extend the commission‘s powers to cover cable, expected to ask Congress to give him the authority to do so.  So, does that mean that edgy cable shows like “The Sopranos” will be strong-armed off the air?  My take, the FCC really sounds like it is going too far. 

If they want to enforce rules they should have—that they should have enforced before for the most indecent of broadcasts, I support that.  But I‘m fearing that this is just politicking in an election year.  Joining me now is First Amendment attorney Derek Newman, who says the FCC is going too far and Jan Larue, chief counsel with Concerned Women for America. 

All right, thank you both for coming on the program.  Ms. Larue, I mean look...

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  ... I get—you know let‘s keep Howard Stern out of this for a moment.  Let‘s talk about the next step, which is, you know, Bono, in the process of thanking them for an award slips, all right?  And now cable shows?  So we‘re going to start making “The Sopranos” say friggin and clean up all—everything that‘s on pay television? 

JAN LARUE, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA: Well that‘s not our position, Dan.  What we‘re interesting in and the cable companies self regulating doing one of two things and that‘s providing their customers with cable choice in the basic package.  “The Sopranos” is a premium cable show.  So we‘re not talking about that at all. 

ABRAMS:  All right, so let‘s talk about basic.  Let‘s put aside, then, “The Sopranos”, even though...

LARUE:  Yes.

ABRAMS:  ... that really may be on the table.  But just for the purpose of this conversation let‘s just talk about basic cable.  You pay for cable, right?  You pay extra...

LARUE:  You do.

ABRAMS:  ... to get cable and you‘re saying that still...

LARUE:  You have no choice.

ABRAMS:  ... they shouldn‘t be able to use any curse words, et cetera, on cable. 

LARUE:  What we would like to see is one of two things.  And that‘s for the companies to give their customers a choice.  Right now you give them your money and you get no choice in your basic pack package.  And there‘s a lot of programming in the basic package that‘s not appropriate for children.  So either give customers the right to make the selection in their basic package, or, if they refuse to do that, then self-regulate.  Apply decency standards in the basic capable package. 

ABRAMS:  When you say self-regulate, you mean not the FCC, though.  I mean because that‘s my problem.  My problem is a governmental agency—I get the whole—look the Supreme Court, it was a close call on this one back in the ‘70‘s...

LARUE:  Right.  Yes.

ABRAMS:  ... as to whether the FCC should be regulating this.  But I get that.  The question is are we going to allow them to expand their power, and, I think you‘ve got to be honest, because Jackson—Janet Jackson bared her breast at the Super Bowl? 

LARUE:  Well, I don‘t think it‘s just Janet Jackson. 

(CROSSTALK)

LARUE:  I think that‘s what took it over the top because of what they did on a Sunday afternoon in a family event, coming into our homes and intentionally pulling off that stunt.  What we‘re interested in—and the majority of the public, we just conducted a poll, and it indicates that 80 percent of cable customers don‘t want to pay for what they don‘t want to watch.  They want a choice. 

ABRAMS:  Yes, OK.  But you know any time you phrase a question like that, of course that‘s going to be their answer.  Derek Newman...

LARUE:  Well that wasn‘t the only question. 

ABRAMS:  Well, Derek...

LARUE:  But here‘s...

ABRAMS:  Let me bring in Derek Newman here.  All right.  So, look, are you concerned about what the FCC is doing and how far they‘re going? 

DEREK NEWMAN, FIRST AMENDMENT ATTORNEY:  Of course.  There‘s a couple of problems with this.  First of all, you can regulate decency in broadcasting because it‘s a pervasive medium.  But decency is not even unlawful on cable.  And then, you also have to add, and you hear this argument all the time, but people don‘t seem to follow it.  Parents have a duty to regulate what their children see.  I have two young kids at home and I know what they‘re watching at all times, and that‘s how cable should be regulated.  It‘s not the content of programming.  That‘s a very slippery slope that we don‘t want to go down. 

ABRAMS:  Ms. Larue.

LARUE:  Well, you know, come on.  No parent can watch their children 24 hours a day. 

NEWMAN:  Well, I can...

(CROSSTALK)

NEWMAN:  And if I can‘t...

LARUE:  Unless you work at home...

NEWMAN:  ... then cable TV is not going to be on...

LARUE:  ... all the time and have your children with you at every moment, you‘re very unusual.  The majority of the American people are just asking cable companies to respond to their needs...

NEWMAN:  That‘s fine...

LARUE:  ... and to help them. 

NEWMAN:  ... the problem is information in matters of public concern.  Getting out to the public.  The most important rights we have in this country stem from the First Amendment.  It‘s discourse...

LARUE:  We‘re not talking about...

NEWMAN:  ... it‘s debate. 

LARUE:  ... trashing...

NEWMAN:  And we have a serious problem...

LARUE:  ... the First Amendment here. 

NEWMAN:  It‘s because Janet Jackson...

LARUE:  We‘re talking about a private company. 

NEWMAN:  ... does something that might be subtly irresponsible.  Now all of a sudden politicians want to stop what you have the right to see. 

(CROSSTALK)

NEWMAN:   ... First Amendment...

LARUE:  No, not at all. 

ABRAMS:  Jan Larue, I‘ve got to tell you...

LARUE:  That‘s not what we‘re talking about...

(CROSSTALK)

LARUE:  ... censorship at all.

NEWMAN:  But it‘s not until their rights are violated that they actually...

ABRAMS:  Jan Larue, I heard that C-SPAN is now considering a delay.  I mean the day when C-SPAN considers a delay...

LARUE:  That—you know what we‘re looking at here is a lot of media companies that are trying to play into this hysteria over the slippery slope by overreacting to do things like that.  That‘s ridiculous. 

NEWMAN:  You articulate that position today...

LARUE:  The decency standard...

NEWMAN:  ... because your issues are being heard.

LARUE:  ... don‘t apply to...

ABRAMS:  All right.

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS:  All right, all right, all right...

(CROSSTALK)

LARUE:  Come on.

ABRAMS:  One at a time.  Hang on.  I actually got to wrap it up.

LARUE:  I think C-SPAN can tell the difference between Janet Jackson...

ABRAMS:  Yes.

LARUE:  ... and a political discussion, don‘t you? 

ABRAMS:  Jan Larue, Derek Newman, thanks a lot. 

LARUE:  Thank you. 

ABRAMS:  Why it‘s time for an honest look back at why we went to war, what we found, and what we should do now.  Why are so many ignoring the cold, hard facts?  It‘s my “Closing Argument”.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ABRAMS:  Coming up, “Your Rebuttal” about last night‘s story on whether parents should be forced to testify against their own children in court.  Coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ABRAMS:  My “Closing Argument”—why it‘s time for an honest look back at why we went to war, what we found and what we should do now.  I was struck by a Harris poll released yesterday that suggests the facts don‘t really seem to be impacting certain people‘s views about the war.  Maybe it‘s just the lawyer in me, but the facts should matter more. 

For example, 19 percent of Americans polled believe that—quote—

“clear evidence of weapons of mass destruction has been found in Iraq.”  Really?  Yet there‘s no evidence to support that.  None.  Fifty-one percent believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the war began.  And again, not a scintilla a of evidence to suggest that Saddam or any of his henchmen destroyed or deployed WMDs at the outset of the war. 

That‘s something the weapons inspectors would almost certainly have been able to detect.  Yes, he had them at one point.  And yes, we had a right to suspect that he had them when the war began.  What are they basing this opinion on?  I, too, was convinced that Saddam had the weapons based on U.N. reports and other intelligence.  But it sure seems now it wasn‘t the case.  Forty-nine percent believe that there‘s clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda.  Even the administration isn‘t going that far. 

I mean you can make an argument that there may have been certain contact between an al Qaeda connected figure and some Iraqi leaders, but even that is tenuous.  And there‘s nothing to suggest that there is clear evidence of Iraq‘s support of al Qaeda.  Again, I supported the war, but based on facts and intelligence we had at the time.  I wonder if some are just trying to look at this through a rose colored prism.  I say it doesn‘t help our cause to revise history. 

And yet despite the fact that so many seem to believe all the justifications for the war turned out to be true, more than half favor bringing home most of our troops in the next year.  Thereby leaving Iraq to become far more threatening to the U.S as a possible terrorist haven.  Whatever you think about the war, whatever you think we should do now, we have to base these decisions on facts, not wishful thinking.  It‘s too important. 

I‘ve had my say.  Now it‘s time for “Your Rebuttal”.  Last night we told about 28-year-old Jennifer Porter, an elementary school teacher who eventually came forward and admitted she was involved in a fatal hit-and-run in Tampa on March 31.  Porter has refused to talk to police thus far.  Now prosecutors are trying to force her parents to testify about what she told them happened that night.  I said, you know, if there‘s going to be a privilege to prevent husbands and wives from testifying against one another, I don‘t really see that as any more important than the parent/child relationship. 

From Bradenton, Florida Cheryl writes, “Shouldn‘t the question here be why isn‘t Jennifer accepting responsibility for her actions.  I know my adult children would understand my turning them into the police had this happened to them.”  Really?  Your kids would understand if they had confided in you and you turned them in?  Whey do I doubt that?

Donna Ewins from Niagara Falls, New York, “It seems to me that such a privilege would allow parents to become sort of accessories after the fact.  I understand that parents want to protect their children and keep them out of jail, but what about every person‘s duty to society when someone breaks the law?”

Look, I would encourage parents to come forward and help in any way they can.  And if the parents refuse to provide information that might help find someone who is missing, for example, I wouldn‘t have any sympathy.  I think you can make a pretty narrow exception.  If we protect attorney/client privilege, doctor/patient privilege, husbands and wives, I don‘t really understand how this is so much different. 

From Tampa, Florida Ellen Rosado, “If she were a minor I might be able to grasp the concept of the parent/child privilege.  But she‘s an adult with a college education who teaches children.”

You know Ellen, I agree with you.  Maybe that‘s the way you could create the law.  Such that it would only apply to a child who‘s under the age of 18, for example. 

Don Campbell in Newport, Oregon thinks it makes sense.  “How humane, logical and supportive of the battered family unit can you get.”

Finally, the Michael Jackson case and our coverage of the indictment last night.  From Vinton, Iowa, Julie Bramow and family, she said.  “I just want to thank you for having the best coverage on Michael Jackson to date.  You are very fair and don‘t just take hearsay and run with it.”

You know, every once in a blue moon I have to just put on a nice un-refuted note.  Thanks, Julie.  Appreciate it.  My producer Megan just told me to get over it. 

Send your e-mails to abramsreport—one word -- @msnbc.com.  We‘ll go through them.  Remember to include your name and where you‘re writing from. 

Coming up next, “HARDBALL” with Chris Matthews.  Chris talks with Ken Adelman about Bob Woodward‘s controversial new book “Plan of Attack”. 

Thanks for watching.  See you tomorrow.

END

               

Copy: Content and programming copyright 2004 MSNBC.  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.  Transcription Copyright 2004 FDCH e-Media, Inc.  (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House Inc., eMediaMillWorks, 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 FDCH e-Media, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,