updated 6/1/2005 8:45:21 AM ET 2005-06-01T12:45:21

Guest: Ric Robinson, Roger Sutton, Ruth Westheimer, Sandy Rios, Jo-Ellan Dimitrius, Maureen Orth, G. Gordon Liddy


NICK JONES, GRANDSON OF DEEP THROAT:  People used to think Deep Throat was a criminal.  But now they think he is a hero. 


JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST:  Tonight‘s top headline:  Out of the shadows, Deep Throat reveals himself. 

Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, no passport required, only common sense allowed. 


SCARBOROUGH (voice-over):  One of Washington‘s biggest mysteries is solved, as the man who leaked Woodward and Bernstein secret info about the Watergate cover-up comes forward.  Now 91, former FBI official Mark Felt says:  I am Deep Throat. 

What does it mean?  We will talk about it with an all-star panel of insiders, some of whom were rumored to be Deep Throat themselves. 

Then, Michael Jackson‘s fate will soon be in the hands of a jury.  Who are the men and women who will decide his fate?  Plus, “Vanity Fair”‘s Maureen Orth is here to talk about her explosive Jackson article.  Tonight, SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY goes inside the jury box. 

Then, Tasers. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Get out of the car or I am going to Tase you. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Are they safe or a handheld version of the electric chair?  We will go inside the shocking Taser debate tonight.  


ANNOUNCER:  From the press room, to the courtroom, to the halls of Congress, Joe Scarborough has seen it all.  Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.

SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, welcome to the show. 

So, who is Deep Throat?  For more than 30 years, the answer to that question has been—well, it‘s been Washington‘s best-kept secret.  But, today, the mystery finally solved.  W. Mark Felt, number two man at the FBI, revealed himself to “Vanity Fair” magazine as Deep Throat.

And, earlier this evening Watergate reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were seen together again, after Woodward confirmed the story on “The Washington Post” Web site. 

With me now to talk about these very surprising developments are General Alexander Haig.  He was former President Nixon‘s chief of staff.  Also, Monica Crowley, co-host of MSNBC‘s “CONNECTED COAST TO COAST,” who is also the author of “Nixon Off the Record” and “Nixon in Winter.”  She served as Nixon‘s foreign policy assistant from ‘90 until ‘94,.  And, also, Pat Buchanan, also a former Nixon speechwriter and an MSNBC political analyst. 

Pat, let‘s begin with you. 


SCARBOROUGH:  After all these years, we find out team Nixon was actually betrayed by the number two guy at the FBI.  His grandson calls him a hero.  What do you call him tonight, Pat? 

BUCHANAN:  Well, I don‘t think he is a hero at all.  I suspected it was Mark Felt in recent years.  Everything pointed to him, motivation and knowledge. 

But here‘s a man who has been entrusted with a high honor, deputy chief of the FBI, sneaking around at night, handing out materials he got from a legitimate investigation to “The Washington Post,” Nixon‘s enemy, in the middle of a campaign.  And we find out from Bob Woodward that he is unhappy because he was passed over for director. 

I think it was payback.  I think it was a nasty thing to do on his part.  The honorable thing to do, if he felt something terrible was going on, stand up and resign and say so. 

SCARBOROUGH:  General Haig, what in the world is the number two guy at the FBI doing whispering to a young reporter, who had only been at “The Washington Post” for nine months?  Why not go to the FBI director, march over to the White House, or march to a DA, and say, hey, the White House is committing crimes against the government, against Americans; let‘s prosecute these guys?

ALEXANDER HAIG, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE:  Yes, well, the first thing to remember is, it may have been the White House, but it was not necessarily President Nixon in those early days, when they were focusing on the break-in, because I don‘t think he really knew about the break-in.

And I think those closest to the situation would probably share that view.  What he did do was cover up for friends, because he had an excessive amount of loyalty that went downward, as well as upward, unlike most presidents.  But, be that as it may, I am not going to gainsay Mark Felt.

I felt it was Mark Felt after I did extensive research on Watergate, before I wrote my second book.  The trouble is, when I concluded that, I had already submitted the manuscript to the publisher and it was printed without it.  But I had said it to my friends, many of whom may be with you tonight.  And certainly your previous show, I gave it to him some years ago, that I thought it was Mark Felt. 

I don‘t know what his motivations were.  I am not one that believes that, if you work for a president, if you disagree for moral purposes or any other with what he is doing, you have an obligation to tell him so, and if he doesn‘t listen, to resign and to do whatever else you think you can do to make the situation better for the country. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And be honorable and not go around behind everybody‘s back, and when you‘re the number two guy at the FBI and whispering to a beat reporter, a metro reporter at “The Washington Post.” 

Monica Crowley, you were around Richard Nixon to the very end.  Tell me, did he speculate often in those final years about Deep Throat, who it may have been, who it may not—I mean, did he have a running list that he marked off, trying to figure out—figure this great mystery out? 

MONICA CROWLEY, CO-HOST, “CONNECTED: COAST TO COAST”:  Well, you know, Joe, it wasn‘t something that consumed him on a day-to-day basis.

And by the time I got to him during the last four years of his life, he had a certain introspection about Watergate.  He reflected on it very seriously, and, frankly, very emotionally.  And when he and I discussed who Deep Throat might be, we would bandy about a few names here and there, those who were on the short list of potential suspects.

And one thing that was remarkable about Nixon—and perhaps it was a psychological defense mechanism.  I am not quite sure.  But every time we would discuss a name, we would sort of lay out the evidence as to why that person could be the source.  And Nixon never referred to Deep Throat as Deep Throat, that moniker that was given to them—given to the source by “The Washington Post.” 

But, instead, he always referred to the source as the source.  And he would say, well, so and so, well, maybe.  You know, maybe they had access to the materials.  Maybe they knew Bob Woodward from way back, but, no, no, no, so and so couldn‘t be the source because he wouldn‘t or she wouldn‘t be that disloyal. 

You know, Joe, it was very difficult for Nixon, even in his final years, to wrap his mind around the idea that anybody in his administration who would serve at the pleasure of the president would be that disloyal, not just to Richard Nixon personally, but to the institution of the presidency. 

SCARBOROUGH:  General Haig, would Richard Nixon have resigned were there not Deep Throat? 

HAIG:  I don‘t—in the first place, I don‘t think it was Deep Throat or the Woodward-Bernstein revelations that brought the president down.  I don‘t think that at all. 

They were certainly instrumental in keeping the issue alive in the press, and gave “The Washington Post” a great leverage bar to cast.  But what brought him down were the tapes.  And the really tragic part was, if those tapes had not been revealed, I think Richard Nixon would have finished his second term. 

BUCHANAN:  Joe, let me talk to what Al said earlier, if I might.

And that is Nixon‘s personal loyalty down.  I have always been a believer that John Mitchell did not want to come to Washington.  And Nixon convinced him.  And I think he saw him in trouble.  And so Nixon tries to help him.  And mistakes were made, and dumb things were done, admittedly.

But let me say this.  The people that went after Richard Nixon day in and day out to use anything to bring him down hated him long before Watergate.  They were outraged over the victory Nixon won, 49 states.  He had beaten the candidate of the establishment, McGovern.  And they were doing anything to bring him down.  And they didn‘t give a damn what would happen in Vietnam as a consequence of that. 

In ‘73, we had every one of the POWs home and every provincial capital in allied hands.  Two years later, the whole thing came down.  And the people ought to ask them who brought him down, ought to ask themselves what their motivation was as well. 

SCARBOROUGH:  You know, Pat, Pat, actually, Pat, I think it‘s interesting.  I personally—I think it went all the way back to Alger Hiss.

BUCHANAN:  It did.


SCARBOROUGH:  I think it went back to what he did back then. 

You know, what is so ironic, though?  Obviously, Pat, you know media. 

You have followed media. 

BUCHANAN:  Right. 

SCARBOROUGH:  You—as communications director.

I think it‘s so fascinating.  I heard, in the last hour, Andrea Mitchell talking about how, after Watergate, Americans never looked at their government again, didn‘t trust them.  Isn‘t it fascinating that, after Watergate, Americans didn‘t trust the media again either?  You look at media approval numbers, pre-‘73, post-‘75, a remarkable plunge.  Why is that? 

BUCHANAN:  Well, one thing, let me tell you, is, look, people came to understand after this that the same media folks who had taken down Richard Nixon had covered up for presidents they liked and they admired who had done things far worse than Richard Nixon. 

I don‘t defend what Nixon did.  He made some terrible mistakes.  But as I once wrote, you know, he rustled a pony and he was hanged by the biggest horse thieves in the county. 


CROWLEY:  Can I—can I just pick up on that, Joe, because Pat is making a really important point. 

And this is something that Nixon had talked to me about, too, in his last days.  He said, Monica, I should have understood that there was a standard for Republicans, a standard for Democrats, and then there was a standard for me.  And when he entered the White House in 1968 -- and, again, like Pat, I am not excusing Nixon‘s role in Watergate—I am just trying to set it into context. 

His predecessors were protected by a press, a liberal press that catered to the likes of John F. Kennedy, catered to the likes of Lyndon Johnson, who, frankly, did everything in the book while they were in the White House.  And Nixon just assumed, wrongly, that he would be just as protected as they had been.  That was his first mistake. 

His second mistake was a failure to understand that the ground beneath him was shifting, that investigative reporting was coming into its own, that there was this countercultural revolution that was happening.  The political ground was shifting beyond him.  And it was—that was happening so fast, it was beyond even Nixon‘s visionary mind to grasp at the moment. 

SCARBOROUGH:  General Haig, I will give you the final word. 

HAIG:  Well, I think all of these things are very relevant and are true.

But having followed those last days, there was no—there was not a sufficient consensus to bring about impeachment.  That didn‘t happen until Teddy Kennedy visited the governor of Alabama, and the Boll Weevil, some 30-some votes of Southern Democrats, were thrown back into the Democratic camp.  They were the ones that prevented impeachment and would have.  But they lost them because of the collapse of the support of the governor of Alabama.

And I was there the day the president talked to him.  And he looked at me when he hung up.  He said, Al, I have just lost the presidency.

And I had to agree that the votes were gone. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes.  All right. 

General Haig, Pat Buchanan, Monica Crowley, thank you so much for being with us tonight, a fascinating, fascinating discussion, the remarkable story.  We appreciate it. 

Now, one of the men at the center of the Watergate break-in that started it all, G. Gordon Liddy, was actually thought by many to be Deep Throat. 

And, earlier tonight, I asked him about today‘s revelations. 


G. GORDON LIDDY, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  But there‘s an awful lot of fishy smell having to do with this thing. 

First of all, we knew that Bob Woodward had a number of sources, and we knew the identities of some of the sources.  And probably Mr. Felt may have given him more information than any other, and he can sort of stick the designation of Deep Throat on him, but it‘s still more of a composite.  And I will tell you why I think so. 

He wrote of this big, long past relationship that he had with his friend Deep Throat.  And there‘s no evidence that there was any association or friendship between Mark Felt and Bob Woodward.  Secondly, why would the number two man at the FBI, who wanted, presumably, to get information out, choose to leak to the metro reporter? 

SCARBOROUGH:  But what would Bob Woodward have to gain by pinning Deep Throat on one guy, instead of this composite you speak of? 

LIDDY:  Well, he has to—he has to—he has to have—he has to have him on—one, he has been dining out on this story now for, what, 30-some-odd years.  And he got badly burned when Ted Koppel caught him, when he said that he had had that conversation with former CIA Director Casey, who was, at the time, aphasic.

And Ted Koppel embarrassed him mortally on that and his credibility hasn‘t been very good since. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Any final thoughts? 

LIDDY:  This, that if Mark Felt was Deep Throat, he is no hero.  He is someone who behaved unethically, in that he did not take his evidence to the grand jury and seek an indictment.  That‘s what he should have done, instead of selectively leak to one news outlet some of the information that he had. 


SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Thank you, G. Gordon Liddy. 

Now, coming up, a lot more in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.  Police officers all over America are using them, but are Tasers only being used as a last resort?  We are going to tackle this growing debate coming up. 

And later, a book about teen sex parties.  Is it really necessary for kids?  Dr. Ruth will enter SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY and let us know. 


SCARBOROUGH:  The Michael Jackson trial heading for the jury.  So, what are those jurors thinking?  We are going to be asking America‘s most famous jury consultant to take inside the jury box.  Plus, an explosive new article in “Vanity Fair,” that‘s coming up next.



SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, welcome back. 

You know, it‘s almost judgment day in the molestation case against Michael Jackson.  Now, in just a minute, we are going to go inside the jury room with one of America‘s top jury experts.

But, first, “Vanity Fair”‘s Maureen Orth has an explosive article out this month called “CSI: Neverland” in “Vanity Fair”‘s July issue, which is on newsstands next week. 

I talked to her earlier and I asked her, what was going on inside the bizarre world of Michael Jackson? 


MAUREEN ORTH, “VANITY FAIR”:  Well, I started talking to this conspiracy investigator named Gordon Novel, who told me through numerous issues, actually, that he had been contacted by Michael Jackson‘s brother Jermaine and they had him come to Neverland, because Michael thought the reason he was at trial was that there was a vast basically financial conspiracy against him to take his music catalog away, his major asset.  And he wanted Novel‘s advice on how to—quote—“stop the trials, stop the show.”

SCARBOROUGH:  You know, we have talked about how this has been a media circus in the past and how—how just bizarre characters seem to constantly orbit around Michael Jackson.

But, in your piece, no character seemed to be quite as bizarre as those closest to Michael Jackson, his own family.  Talk about that. 

ORTH:  Well, they have made a lot in this trial of the dysfunctional family, the mother that the defense has done a good job of portraying as the defendant herself, as being—as the accuser coming from a very weird, screwed-up, dysfunctional family.  And then I just sort of contrast all the things that happened in the Jackson family.

And if we start with that there are reported accusations that the oldest daughter reported sexual molestation accusations against her father, there is a—a—a lawsuit paper that showed up that showed that there was a judgment against the mother and two or three of the siblings for beating up one of the father‘s girlfriends.  Brother Jermaine, who has converted—he is now a Muslim—has two wives and a girlfriend, and the wife that is divorcing him has one child by him, Jermajesty, and two children by his brother, Randy, who Jermaine stole her away from, and another brother—you know, it goes on and on. 

SCARBOROUGH:  You know, Maureen, at this point of the trial, everybody is trying to figure out what that jury is thinking.  Everybody always tries to get into the mind of the jury, especially in a high-profile case like this.

But you actually have—part of your article discussed the jury‘s state of mind and what you observed in the courtroom.  And I got to tell you, it was not very comforting. 

ORTH:  Well, this was just—this was just one instance, because the jury is very conscientious.  It takes a lot of notes.  It‘s very laid-back, kind of California jury.  Sometimes, they knock off their flip-flops and put their bear feet against the railing.  I mean, it‘s different than East Coast behavior, for example. 

But, anyway, this one time, one of the boys who—actually, the only boy who actually got up and said that he had been molested by Michael, other than the accuser, the son of one of the former maids of Neverland, had really just spilled his guts out in front of this jury.  His mother had gotten paid $2.4 million by Jackson.  And he really is an evangelical youth pastor now, etcetera, and a very clean-cut young man.

And he obviously—it was torture for him to have had to confess this on the stand.  And, all of a sudden, when he kind of finished doing it, there was a conference at the bench, and he kind of looked over at the jury to sort of get some kind of empathy.  And all they did was sort of laugh and joke among themselves, which I found very odd. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Maureen Orth, thanks a lot.  It is an explosive article.  I recommend everybody read that, along with another article or two in “Vanity Fair” this month. 

Also, Maureen is the author of “The Importance of Being Famous,” a book I reread in parts this weekend, and, most importantly for me, the author of the 1975 cover story on the emergence of Bruce Springsteen. 



ORTH:  But I have a lot of Michael Jackson in that book about—a whole bunch, because, you know, I have been writing about him so long. 


SCARBOROUGH:  A whole bunch.  I have got to get past the Huffington chapter.  So...


SCARBOROUGH:  Thanks a lot, Maureen. 

ORTH:  Thank you. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Great to have you here.  We appreciate it. 

ORTH:  You‘re welcome. 


SCARBOROUGH:  And tonight also, the Jackson family spokeswoman, Raymone Bain, responded to “Vanity Fair”‘s allegations on MSNBC “ABRAMS REPORT.”  And this is what she had to say. 


RAYMONE BAIN, JACKSON FAMILY SPOKESPERSON:  I am appalled, frankly.  I have to question the timing of this, Dan.  Here we are on the heels of closing arguments, jury deliberation, and all of a sudden now we are hearing about one of Michael‘s attorneys paying off witnesses, his mother asking for $250,000.  I am saying that that whole article is just outrageous and untrue. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Now, the big question this week is, what is the jury thinking? 

With me now to go inside the Jackson jury is jury consultant Jo-Ellan Dimitrius, the gold standard of jury consultants.

Jo-Ellan, thanks so much for being with us tonight.


SCARBOROUGH:  Read the jury for me.  We hear all the time—as an attorney, you know, they always told me that—you know, the first thing they teach you is, so many trials are won after you pick your jury.  If that is the case, who has the advantage?  Is it Jackson‘s team or do the prosecutors have the advantage? 

DIMITRIUS:  Well, you know, based on—on my read of the juror questionnaires, it‘s—it‘s a really fascinating group.

Just to kind of reiterate where we are coming from, four of the jurors are male.  Eight of the jurors are female.  Out of that group, their age range is between 20 and 79 years of age.  The folks that are in their 20s have a high school education.  The folks that are up in their 50s, up to 79, many of them have graduate degrees.  So, you take all of that, along with all of their life experience, and you have got a pretty interesting group. 

You know, you have a group where one of those individuals had someone that they knew, either family or close friend, who had been a victim of inappropriate sexual behavior.  You also had several people, several jurors, who themselves knew someone who had been accused of inappropriate sexual behavior.  So, we have got the whole spectrum here.  And these folks have had to sit somewhat with poker faces for this entire trial.

And what is going to happen in the next few days, between being given the jury instructions, which is absolutely critical here in terms of describing certain things that they are going to have to look at, and obviously closing arguments, I think these people pretty much have an idea what they are going to vote.  And what they are going to do is to listen to the attorneys...


SCARBOROUGH:  Does anything—does anything jump out at you though? 

Anything jump out at you, though, as far as the jury? 


SCARBOROUGH:  I mean, do you say this is a Jackson friendly jury or it‘s a state friendly jury? 

DIMITRIUS:  I think it is a jury that will probably end up as a hung jury. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Do you really? 

DIMITRIUS:  We know that one of the jurors—yes.  Out of all the jurors—this is really unusual—only one juror has been a juror before, and she was a juror on a criminal case, in which the defendant was acquitted. 

So, we have only she as having had the experience in the courtroom.  And, again, based on my read of the questionnaires, I think that we might end up with a hung jury, because all you need...

SCARBOROUGH:  Now, what—what about the fact the there‘s—you were going to say all you need is one person to say... 

DIMITRIUS:  All you need is one person, right...

SCARBOROUGH:  Acquit, right.

DIMITRIUS:  ... from the defense. 

SCARBOROUGH:  What do you make of the fact that there aren‘t any African-Americans on this jury?  How does that break? 

DIMITRIUS:  Well, I think that, certainly, that was tragic for the defense, and I know that there were two African-American females who were excused by the prosecution in the final stages for reasons I understand because they had negative experience or someone in their family had negative experience with law enforcement. 

So, I think that that will be certainly a factor.  But there are a lot of these people, too, that knew about the 1993 incident.  And they came into this courtroom with certain ideas about Michael Jackson, based on what they have heard or read.  And, generally, what happens is, they look for that information that is presented at trial that supports it. 

So, you know, they have been told now for two months that they are not to talk about anything involved with the case.  They can talk about anything else.  And, all of a sudden, they are going to be put into a situation where they are going to have to deliberate.  I think that Tom Mesereau has done a very good job in instilling reasonable doubt with these jurors.  But I do think that there are several jurors that are very prosecution prone at this point. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Jo-Ellan, finally, final question here.  Obviously, so much of this comes down to the boy‘s credibility.  They talk about the mother‘s credibility, Jackson‘s credibility. 

But it‘s—in the end, it‘s a jury looking at this boy‘s testimony.  What do you look for when you are trying to figure out whether a juror is going to be able to relate to a young boy on the stand talking about the possibility of being molested or whether they are going to probably just disregard what the young kid has to say and go ahead and acquit Jackson? 

DIMITRIUS:  Well, they are going to rely on, if they themselves have children, you know, their experiences with their own children in telling the truth. 

Clearly, anything—any of the testimony by other witnesses that either validated what he said or invalidated what he said is going to be considered.  But the bottom line is, the child and his mother are going to be absolutely critical in terms of this jury deciding whether or not reasonable doubt has been established. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, Jo-Ellan Dimitrius, thank you so much for being with us tonight.  We greatly appreciate it. 

DIMITRIUS:  Thank you.  My pleasure.

SCARBOROUGH:  And we‘ll be right back in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY with my issues when we return.


SCARBOROUGH:  What did Christian Slater allegedly do in the streets of Manhattan to get himself arrested that Bill Clinton did in the White House, allegedly, of course, allegedly?  Well, I have got issues.  I‘ll tell you about it.

But, first, here‘s the latest news your family needs to know. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, welcome back.  I‘m Joe.  I wasn‘t invited to Jennifer Wilbanks‘ wedding, and I‘ve got issues.

First up, I‘ve got issues with the runaway bride, Jennifer Wilbanks.  Now, Ms. Wilbanks, as you know, has more than a few issues herself, including a supercharged sexual imagination.  That little condition may have led to her indictment last week for lying to police about being the victim of a kidnapping and forced sexual orgy. 

Well, “The New York Post” is reporting that Wilbanks is getting help for all of her afflictions and has agreed to pay the city of Duluth, Georgia, $13,000 for search costs.  That‘s a nice thought, but the total bill is $40,000.  Hey, why don‘t you put away the porn and take out the calculator, missy?  You still owe taxpayers $27,000, by my count. 

And, speaking of New York, I have also got issues with “The New York Times” outing the CIA‘s secret operations.  Now, today, a front-page “Times” article detailed how a chartered flight operation used by the CIA ferries terrorists and agency workers to hot spots around the world in numerous secret missions. 

In its descriptions, the detailed account ensures that the charter operation, of course, will never be anonymous again.  While spilling top U.S. government information, “The Times” seemed to overlook the contents of an al Qaeda handbook that was seized in Manchester, England, that told all al Qaeda brothers to complain of abuse in places like, oh, I don‘t know, Guantanamo Bay when they finally get to court. 

Hey, give al Qaeda credit.  The terrorists know where the mainstream media‘s weak spot is and where al Qaeda‘s friends at Amnesty International‘s weak spot is. 

And, finally, I have got issues with Christian Slater, and not just for starring role in “Bed of Roses.”  The actor was arrested early this morning on the Upper East Side of Manhattan after a woman flagged down police.  The unidentified blonde said the recently separated actor walked up from behind her and grabbed her buttocks. 

What, that is against the law now?  Thank God President Clinton lives out in the burbs.  Slater was charged with third-degree sexual abuse and given a July 14 court date.  “Heathers” fans everywhere are eagerly awaiting his mug shot to go public. 

Now, you think that, if you keep your kids away from the television set, you are going to protect them from too much sexual stuff.  But watch out when your kids tell you they want to curl up with a good book.  A new novel called “Rainbow Party” is all about teenagers getting ready—I kid you not—for an oral sex party.  This is aimed, friends, for 13- and 14-year-olds.  It‘s unbelievable. 

Here to talk about the issue and all the problems facing our kids, we have got Roger Sutton of Horn Book Publications, which publishes children‘s literature.  We have Sandy Rios of the Culture Campaign.  And we have Dr.  Ruth Westheimer, psychosexual therapist and author of “Dr. Ruth‘s Sex After 50: Revving Up the Romance, Passion & Excitement.”

Dr. Ruth, let‘s begin with you. 

I am all for revving up sex and excitement for people over 50.  I am a little concerned, though, about these books that are aimed at girls under 15 talking about oral sex parties, where they put on different shades of lipstick to mark up young boys.  What should we as parents think about things like that? 

DR. RUTH WESTHEIMER, SEX THERAPIST:  First, Joe, you are going to be very happy with me tonight.  I will tell you why. 

This is the worst book I have ever seen in my entire life dealing with an issue of sexuality.  Number one, the publisher—and you can mention who it is—should be ashamed.  Number two, it‘s a cheap book.  It‘s less than $10.  So, kids are going to buy it.  Number three, it doesn‘t say one word about that author, who that author is.  It‘s just very trashy.  It is misleading. 

It is saying all of the girls and boys of that tender age go out and do what they describe in that book.  The language in that book is just awful.  You know, Joe, that I am all for educating, but this is not sex education.  This is the worst, the worst writing, and the worst trash that I have ever seen in my whole life. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Roger Sutton, let me bring you in.  You also read the book.  What did you think of it? 

ROGER SUTTON, HORN BOOK PUBLICATIONS:  Well, Dr. Ruth, you have talked about the price.  You have talked about cover, but you haven‘t talked anything about the book.  I don‘t understand why you think it‘s so horrible. 

WESTHEIMER:  I think it‘s terrible. 

SUTTON:  I don‘t think it‘s a great book, but I think that it does speak to the world that children live in today in this country. 

WESTHEIMER:  It doesn‘t say one word of who that person is, no qualification.  Is that a psychologist?  Is that a counselor? 


SUTTON:  It‘s a novel, Dr. Ruth.  It‘s not...

WESTHEIMER:  Never mind a novel. 

SUTTON:  ... a sex education book. 

WESTHEIMER:  It talks about lipstick being very suggestively used by these young kids.  And I am very worried.  It talks about hooking up.  It talks a language that I would not permit any parent to use with their children. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Go ahead, Roger.  Tell me—tell me why you were not offended by this book. 

SUTTON:  Well, I am not offended by this book.  I think that it speaks very honestly about what conversations sound like in today‘s high school, and I think that it talks about issues that kids are, in fact, confronting every day. 

WESTHEIMER:  And who is that author?

SUTTON:  It‘s not a book that celebrates oral sex or sex of any kind.  In fact, the rainbow party promised in the title never, in fact, takes place.  Everybody chickens out. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Let me bring you in, Sandy. 

You know, what we are hearing now is that this book is educational. 

That‘s what the author is claiming.  It‘s educational. 


WESTHEIMER:  But the author, we don‘t know who it is.


SCARBOROUGH:  Hold on a second.  Yet, in the promotional materials, when they tried to sell this book to book distributors, they had very, very suggestive, very, very titillating campaign talking about what really happens when people go down. 

SANDY RIOS, CULTURE CAMPAIGN:  I just want to say to Dr. Ruth, I have opposed her on so many issues.

I cannot tell you, Dr. Ruth, how much I thank you for your vocal opposition to this. 

And I would just like to ask Roger, what kids are you running around with?  I don‘t know kids who talk like this.  I don‘t know kids who are doing this. 

WESTHEIMER:  And I don‘t know parents...

RIOS:  I realize it‘s in the newspapers.

SUTTON:  Then what are you so worried about? 

RIOS:  But, yes, but I‘m saying—but, Roger, what am I so worried about?  Because the kids that I don‘t know, I care about them, too, and I don‘t want them to be exposed to such titillating information.

And let me just ask you, Roger.  I realize it‘s honest, yes.  So, how about a book about child molestation?  How about Uncle John, who likes to touch you, and how maybe it‘s kind of fun sometimes and feels good, but let‘s take it to the bitter end and show that it‘s not so pleasant after all, but let‘s make a novel about how interesting this all plays out? 


RIOS:  ... reading material for kids to prevent molestation? 

SUTTON:  Sandy, we have had plenty of books about molestation of children.

RIOS:  What?

SUTTON:  Written for young people. 

RIOS:  Novels about how nice it is? 

SUTTON:  Not about how nice it is. 


RIOS:  Talking about..


SUTTON:  This book is not about how nice it is. 


RIOS:  Roger, Roger, when these girls are going shopping for lipstick and having girlfriend talks and the words that (EXPLETIVE DELETED), 14-year-old girls, I don‘t know girls who talk like this. 


SUTTON:  Well, you ought to get out more, because I sure know girls who talk like that. 

RIOS:  Well, maybe that‘s the problem.  Roger, do you want...


SUTTON:  And we are in...


SUTTON:  ... Boston in.

RIOS:  Do you want 14- and 15-year-old girls emulating this and thinking that this is mainstream?  I don‘t. 

This all goes back to the point about the Paris Hilton video, which I have been discussing the last few days, is that this is perfect fodder for people who want to set kids and young girls up for sexual molestation, because it breaks down inhibitions.  It makes them think about things they wouldn‘t even imagine.  And now it‘s in novel form, presented in—with crayons and lipstick.  It‘s not acceptable, Roger.  It is too debasing. 


SUTTON:  So, Sandy, are you saying that young women who... 


SCARBOROUGH:  Go ahead.  Go ahead, Roger. 

WESTHEIMER:  Joe, I‘m...


SCARBOROUGH:  No, hold on a second.  I want to hear Roger. 

Go ahead, Roger.  Your turn. 

SUTTON:  Sandy, are you saying that young women who dress suggestively are asking to be raped? 

WESTHEIMER:  I am not saying that.  I‘m saying that...


RIOS:  Roger, did I say that? 


SUTTON:  I am asking.  I am asking. 

RIOS:  You are asking a question that wasn‘t even stated.  That is a smokescreen, and you know it. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Going back to the 1990s, of course, unfortunately, so many American kids my children‘s age grew up very early knowing about oral sex, hearing about oral sex, because, unfortunately, the Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky debacle that played out...

WESTHEIMER:  Never mind names. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Hold on a second. 



SCARBOROUGH:  Dr. Ruth, Dr. Ruth, hold on a second.  Let me finish my point. 

WESTHEIMER:  Yes.  Yes. 

SCARBOROUGH:  But, unfortunately, at a very early age, they started learning about this.  They started hearing about it on news, hearing it discussed in their homes. 

A new NBC poll that came out said that most young people, most preteens, most teenagers, don‘t think of oral sex as sex. 

WESTHEIMER:  But, you know, Joe...

SCARBOROUGH:  The same argument the president made in the 1990s. 

WESTHEIMER:  Wait.  Wait.  Wait.


SCARBOROUGH:  Tell us, is that an unhealthy appropriate? 

WESTHEIMER:  Joe, what is unhealthy is to think that oral sex is not sex.

Anything that is necking and pecking and touching and arousing is sex.  Why is this book, first of all, so cheap, second of all, so suggestive, with a cover and with a wonderful—you know what they did for me?  I love rainbows.  These people now have really spoiled my love of rainbows.  What is the matter here in this country?  How come they don‘t know where the boundary is between good taste, between sex education, between talking about contraception, and parents having to be responsible adults? 



SCARBOROUGH:  You know, Dr. Ruth, that‘s a great question, a great question.  Thanks for being with us.  We greatly appreciate it. 

And I want to thank my other guests, also, for being with us tonight, too. 

It just—you know, I guess that is where we come down.  That‘s the biggest problem as parents.  How do we raise our kids in a society where all boundaries appear to have been torn down?  That‘s an issue that we will keep approaching, keep asking about in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY. 

And coming up, police departments across the country are using them, but are Tasers being used properly? 





UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Get out of the car now or I am going to Tase you.  Get out of the car now or I am going to Tase you.  I am going to tell you one more time. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  You‘re going to Tase me?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I am going to tell you one more time.  Get out of the car.  Get out of the car or I am going to Tase you.  


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  The next street off of (INAUDIBLE)



SCARBOROUGH:  Shocking new video of a woman in Palm Beach County, Florida, Tasered as part of a routine speeding stop. 

I‘m joined now to talk about Tasers with Ric Robinson, former state trooper and author of “Cop: The Truth Behind the Badge.”


SCARBOROUGH:  Ric, let‘s start—doing all right. 

You know, that tape, I wish we would play more of.  And if we can get it reracked and played it, I want everybody to hear—listen to this. 


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Get out of the car now or I am going to Tase you.  Get out of the car now or I am going to Tase you.  I am going to tell you one more time. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  You‘re going to Tase me?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I am going to tell you one more time.  Get out of the car.  Get out of the car or I am going to Tase you.  


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  The next street off of (INAUDIBLE)




ROBINSON:  He had her doing the funky chicken.  There‘s no doubt about that.

But he told her, what, three or four times, and she even repeated, you are going to Tase me? 

SCARBOROUGH:  OK.  OK.  Ric, OK.  And, again, I don‘t know why we cut it again.  But this lady is screaming at the top of her lungs. 


SCARBOROUGH:  And while she is screaming at the top of her lungs, they Taser her again, because she won‘t put her hands behind her back.  How can you put your hands behind your back if you‘re in convulsions?

ROBINSON:  You know, I heard Dr. Ruth say a few minutes ago, I am going to surprise you.  Well, you probably think I am the most pro-law enforcement officer—guy that you have ever seen on television.

But this is one occasion I probably would not have Tased her.  I might have used something like a come along.  Well, a lot of people will push their lips out and you can grab ahold of them and twist them.  Wherever the head goes, the body goes, or maybe something where I would have used a pressure point hold.  But the thing is, I might have been wrong.  These officers may have very well done exactly what they should have done under some difficult circumstances. 


ROBINSON:  Do what now?

SCARBOROUGH:  What about Tasers in general, where you have got 50,000 volts of electricity? 


SCARBOROUGH:  Is that excessive force? 

ROBINSON:  No, I don‘t think so. 

As a matter of fact, the number of injuries to law enforcement officers has declined about 80 percent with those agencies that are using Tasers, and injuries to suspects down something like 67 percent.  Liability, the money that agencies have had to pay out, has dropped substantially.  So, Tasers are actually very effective. 

Now, I have heard the criticism that they are being overused.  In the

cases that I have seen—and I have looked through a whole bunch of them -

·         I really haven‘t seen one where I thought that they were absolutely wrong.  Like I mentioned a moment ago, with this lady, Vicky Goodwin (ph), I—she was small.  She‘s a model.  There‘s so many other things that I might have done.


But, again, we might be talking about how I bruised her, how I hurt her.  She was going to compete in a Miss Jamaica contest.  So, it may have been she couldn‘t compete because of something that I did to her.  So, when I look at that, they‘re having her—she is doing the funky chicken.  That is a nasty—that is like the cayenne pepper spray.  It‘s designed to take down a bear.  It‘s not supposed to be nice.  But she‘s been...


SCARBOROUGH:  Yes.  You are exactly right, 50,000 volts, not nice.


SCARBOROUGH:  But I will tell you what, Ric.  We have got more shocking video I want to show for you.  You tell me whether it‘s appropriate. 

That‘s when we return in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.


SCARBOROUGH:  Fifty thousand volts of electricity being shot through human beings, is it excessive force?  Some civil rights groups are saying yes. 

We‘ll be right back with more video when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Drop the phone. 


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Drop the phone.   


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Oh, my God.  Oh, my God. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Stop resisting. 


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Stop resisting. 


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Stop resisting. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Stop resisting. 


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Stop resisting. 


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Lay on the ground.



SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, Ric, that is a clip from Indiana, as we are going to continue hearing.  That is a clip from Indiana.

ROBINSON:  All she had to do, she should have just done what she was told. 

SCARBOROUGH:  OK, but it‘s a telephone.  This is a young woman.  She is about 5‘6“.


SCARBOROUGH:  The police are towering over her.  Why don‘t they just grab the phone out of her hand? 

ROBINSON:  Well, I think they were concerned about their safety, perhaps the safety of someone else.  I don‘t know precisely what was in their mind and precisely what they could see from their vantage point. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Should there be guidelines, Ric? 

ROBINSON:  Absolutely. 

Every police agency that has failed to have guidelines, whether it‘s Tasers, cayenne pepper spray, or for their weapons, has ended up spending incredible amounts of money in court, losing virtually every time.  You have got to have specific guidelines when you use a Taser or any other type of force, including and especially deadly force. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Thanks so much, Ric. 

ROBINSON:  You bet. 

SCARBOROUGH:  We appreciate it. 

That‘s all the time we have for tonight.  we‘ll see you tomorrow night in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.


Content and programming copyright 2005 MSNBC.  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.  Transcription Copyright 2005 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 shalluser 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.


Discussion comments