updated 7/20/2005 8:18:30 AM ET 2005-07-20T12:18:30

Guest: Marcia Twitty, Karen Pearl, Ken Starr, David Boies, Al Sharpton

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST:  The president taps a Supreme Court candidate who says Roe has to go. 

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

Good evening.  You are looking live at pictures of the U.S. Supreme Court, where protesters are already out in force tonight.  They are ready to descend like locusts on Washington, D.C.  That‘s going to be happening over the next month. 

The president of the United States has swung for the ideological fence with a Supreme Court pick who was has called for the elimination, the elimination of Roe vs. Wade from American jurisprudence.  Tonight, Washington braces for a brutal political showdown.  And we are going to have complete coverage. 

But also, breaking news out of Aruba in the Natalee Holloway case.  This exclusive NBC News video shows two suspects forced by Aruban government officials to go to a hospital and surrender their DNA samples.  What does the government know that you don‘t?  We are going to be going live to Aruba to see what dramatic developments are happening in that case tonight.

Plus, we are going to have a follow-up on the tragic shooting in Los Angeles of a beautiful 19-month-old girl.  Al Sharpton is going to be here, and what he is going to tell you and me is going to be surprising to a lot of people. 

But, first, the big story tonight.  And it is so big, because it can reshape not only politics in Washington, D.C., but life in middle America and on both coasts.  Obviously, we are going to have a hot August in Washington, D.C. in that bureaucratic bog known as the nation‘s capital, with President Bush‘s selection tonight of the nominee and his appointment of Judge John Roberts of the U.S. District Court of Appeals to be the next Supreme Court justice, following the retirement of Sandra Day O‘Connor. 

In a minute, we are going to be hearing from our all-star panel and get their take on the president‘s choice. 

But, first, let‘s go live to the White House and NBC‘s Kelly O‘Donnell. 

Kelly, what‘s the very latest?


The latest we can tell you is that John Roberts, who is the president‘s choice, was a finalist out of a field of 11 that the president carefully considered.  Mr. Bush interviewed five of them in person, including Mr. Roberts, who visited the White House for about an hour on Friday.  He got the phone call at 12:35 p.m. today, when the president actually left his lunch with the prime minister of Australia, stepping away for a few minutes to make the phone call. 

Roberts is a 50-year-old married father of two, born in Buffalo, raised in Indiana, Harvard-educated, and now he is the 109th nominee—rather, he is the nominee to become the 109th justice to the Supreme Court.  The White House is now shifting from defense, trying to keep the secret of its choice, to offense, urging members of the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, to greet this nomination with a reference to the past, when Judge Roberts was confirmed by unanimous voice consent when he was last before the Senate, in order to be admitted to the D.C. Circuit. 

They are also referring to his large history, as, even though a 50-year-old man, relatively young by anyone‘s standards, who has appeared before the Supreme Court 39 times.  So, they say the combination of his intellect, his experience, and although they didn‘t acknowledge the advantage of his youth, certainly, this means that he could be on the court, the good lord willing, for 25 or 30 years, if you look at those who have served on a typical age.

So, this has far-reaching effects.  Judge Roberts has dined with the president and first lady, spending some time with them this evening.  He is scheduled to come here for breakfast in the morning—Joe. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Kelly, you know, so many people in Washington have been saying for some time that, in the end, this fight is going—is not going to be about the justice nominated.  It‘s going to be about Roe v. Wade.

Obviously, 1991, this man, when he was then working for George Bush, senior, asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Is that going to be his biggest obstacle throughout this Senate process? 

O‘DONNELL:  From the Democrats‘ point of view, that will be a key issue.

And from the moment his name became public, e-mail around Washington was on fire with various groups and representatives from various senators, sending out their initial reactions.  Those office holders, like Senator Harry Reid, provided supportive words, but also making it clear that the process now shifts to the Senate. 

Senator Fred Thompson, the former senator of Tennessee, who is also known to our audience for his TV and movie roles, will be effectively a guide for this nominee, taking him around the Capitol as early as tomorrow, making introductions, to talk about the kinds of things that are at great issue to the 16 members of the Judiciary Committee.

So, his temperament on these kinds of issues is crucial.  The president has said no litmus test.  We will see how the Democrats on the Hill deal with that. 


SCARBOROUGH:  We certainly will, Kelly.  Thanks so much, Kelly O‘Donnell at the White House tonight, on a historic evening.  We greatly appreciate it. 

Let‘s go, speaking of history, to Michael Beschloss.  He‘s NBC News‘ presidential historian and the author of seven books, his most recent, “The New York Times”‘ best-seller, “Conquerors: Roosevelt, Truman and the Destruction of Hitler‘s Germany, 1941-1945.”  Also with us, “Newsweek” magazine‘s chief political correspondent and a friend of ours, Howard Fineman. 

Howard, I hope it‘s OK to call you a friend.  Hope I didn‘t just ruined your social life in Washington, D.C.




SCARBOROUGH:  OK.  Very good.  I appreciate it. 

Let‘s go to you first, Michael, a historic night, obviously.  I am struck by the difference between what George Bush has done tonight, calling a prime-time press conference, what Ronald Reagan did in 1987, when he announces Robert Bork.  An hour later, you‘ve got Ted Kennedy going to the floor.  And I pulled up the quote.  “Robert Bork‘s America is a land in which women will be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks will sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police officers,” etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. 

Why did the president handle it the way he did, to make sure that he was the one that trumped 1,000 Senate speeches? 

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS, NBC PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN:  Yes, so this president doesn‘t have to go through another experience as affected Robert Bork, where he went through that very bruising battle. 

If you are president these days, what you want is two things, someone who has a very good chance of being confirmed, and, at the same time, someone who is going to continue carrying on your views once they get on the court.  And there‘s a big tradition, as you know, on the Supreme Court of people who were put on the court by presidents who thought that they would be liberal or conservative and turned out otherwise. 

Dwight Eisenhower, for instance, appointed Earl Warren and William Brennan, among others, and later on was asked, what were your greatest mistakes?  And he said, well, two of my greatest mistakes as president are sitting on the Supreme Court.  He thought they had gotten too liberal. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And I would think many people would suggest that the elder Bush‘s worst mistake was—is also sitting on the Supreme Court tonight in Justice Souter. 

Was this a bold move?  Is this a president less interested in appeasing Democrats and moderate Republicans on Capitol Hill and more interested in legacy pick, someone who will reshape the Supreme Court after taking over for Sandra Day O‘Connor? 

BESCHLOSS:  No question.  That‘s who he is.  He came to office basically governing in a way he wanted to change this country and the system.

And one of the biggest ways a president can do that is by appointing a justice of the Supreme Court who, in the case of John Roberts, if confirmed, could be sitting there in the year 2040 carrying on those views. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Howard Fineman, this guy, Bush, whether you love him, whether you hate him, whether you are a liberal, whether you‘re a conservative, you have just got to say, he always swings for the fence. 

He—no school uniform speeches during States of the Union.  It‘s always about remaking the Middle East, remaking the world, or remaking American culture.  How is this going to play in Washington? 

FINEMAN:  Well, it is a bold move.

And I was somewhat surprised at the sort of muted reactions of some of the moderates and liberals around town in the first couple hours, because the more I look at John Roberts, the more I realize that the president and conservatives in this country have almost their perfect candidate.  This is a guy who worked for Ken Starr, who‘s in the Federalist Society, who expressed views of doubt about Roe v. Wade in that brief that he helped file under Bush I‘s presidency, who is personally conservative, who is Catholic, who is a strong family man, who has, as George Bush likes to say, a good heart. 

Those are code words for “our kind of guy” in George Bush‘s terms.  And yet, this is a guy with two Harvard degrees, with a stellar record, who argued not only a lot of cases before the Supreme Court, but broadened his view of the world by handling a lot of cases.  This is a guy who also, as I understand it, handled a case for the Playboy Channel at one point, where he was arguing on behalf of the First Amendment in their defense. 

He is a guy who has broad connections around town, who is known not only through his Harvard ties, but through his social affairs, with people here.  He is a comforting figure in that sense.  It was a politically brilliant pick, not for the least of which because the guy is from Buffalo, which means that, ultimately, Tim Russert will be on his side. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Russert will be nice, especially if he is a Bills fan.


SCARBOROUGH:  But, again, let‘s talk about for conservatives.  I mean, let‘s face it.  I mean, the conservatives I have been talking to over the past several weeks, very jaded by the selections Republicans have been making.

Of course, Michael talked about, went back to Brennan and Warren.  You could—you could just go back, actually, Gerald Ford obviously picking John Paul Stevens...


SCARBOROUGH:  ... who is about as far left on this court as you get. And so the question conservatives had was, is it going to happen to us again?  Are we going to be left with a moderate to liberal candidate?  John Roberts clearly is going to reshape the court in a more conservative image.  Is he—now, is there any question of that tonight? 

FINEMAN:  There‘s no question about that.

And I have been working the phones the last couple of days.  At first, the Family Research Council and their allies, you know, Dr. James Dobson out in Colorado Springs, who is the leading religious conservative on these questions, they held back for an hour or two.  Then they came right out with a statement of support after they double-checked everything. 

They love the guy, as far as I can tell.  But because his credentials are so good as a jurist, groups like People For the American way and many Democrats have been forced, at least initially, to hold back, because there‘s no doubt that this guy is not some sort of hothouse conservative with no real-world experience.  This is a first-class jurist.  He is going to be extremely difficult to dislodge. 

He has already got a big bunch of momentum behind him tonight. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Michael, what‘s the history? 

I mean, we have heard—heard the Democrats and the Republicans attacking each over the past six months, saying, oh, well, these sort of fights have never occurred before.  There have never been filibusters. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Presidents have always gotten their way, big lectures on advice and consent.  What the Republicans need, the magic number, five.


SCARBOROUGH:  They have got 55 Republicans who are going to support this guy.  They only need five to get past a filibuster.  Do you think they are going to be able to get that, using history as the guide? 

BESCHLOSS:  I sure do.

And anyone who says that presidents get what they want, George Washington, the most popular president in this country, appointed a chief justice, Rutledge, 1795.  That nomination was defeated on grounds of ideology.  It‘s happened all through history.

But, you know, four out of five justices have been confirmed, but that‘s a mis—in history—but that‘s a misleading figure.  When the Senate is the same party as the president, as we have tonight, the figure is 96 percent of those justices get confirmed.  So, based on what we know tonight, I would think that his chances are awfully good. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And, Howard, as reasoned as he may be, it bears repeating that, when Justice Souter was called up—and conservative groups have had this quote all over their Web sites this afternoon—when you had David Souter being confirmed, of course, the quote we have all heard from the head of NOW, women‘s lives are at stake, and if Souter is put on the court—quote—“Women will die.”


SCARBOROUGH:  So, regardless of how reasoned a jurist he is, this is going to be a long, hot August and September, isn‘t it? 

FINEMAN:  Well, sure.  There are a lot of people who have already built up their war chest.  There‘s $50 to $100 million that was already lined up to be spent on this huge battle.  Now, George Bush...

SCARBOROUGH:  Who has the most money right now? 


SCARBOROUGH:  Conservatives or liberals?

FINEMAN:  I think it‘s pretty evenly split, but the conservatives have the most important thing.  They have got the White House, as Michael was pointing out, as well as the majorities in both the House and, more importantly in this situation, the Senate. 

But, Joe, I can‘t tell you what a shrewd political pick this was for George Bush.  He went as far to the right as he could manage to go and still pick somebody considered mainstream by the establishment of the country, which was important to him in the political dynamics of this around here.  I have talked to people tonight who told me that they think, in his heart, that John Roberts, if given the opportunity to strike down Roe v. Wade, would do so. 

But that‘s going to be impossible to prove in a hearing.  And who knows if he will ever get the chance.  But I am telling you that the conservatives tonight think they have a soul mate in this nomination, but he is going to be hard for the opponents of the president to dislodge. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Going to be very hard for them to lay a hand on him. 

Final question for you, Michael.  I have got to ask you, when you look at presidents in second terms—we could go back to Ronald Reagan—we could go back to Bill Clinton—very hard for presidents really to get anything accomplished domestically.  Really, George Bush‘s best chance of having a legacy in the second term is on the U.S. Supreme Court, isn‘t it? 

BESCHLOSS:  I think that‘s right, and he knows that, and he has a potential for other nominees.  And 30 years from now, when people in my profession look back at George W. Bush and how he affected this country, one place we will probably start is the Supreme Court.  And we will probably go right back to tonight. 

SCARBOROUGH:  No doubt about it.  Michael Beschloss, thank you so much for being with us tonight. 

Howard Fineman, if you can, stick around.  Want to talk to you a little bit more about the political ramifications in Washington.  Also up next, two men who know about the Supreme Court, Ken Starr and David Boies.  And Judge Starr knows this new nominee very well.  We will be asking for the inside scoop on him.

Also, we‘re going to have much more on the Supreme Court nomination in just a minute.  Stay with us.

Plus, exclusive new video of suspect Joran Van Der Sloot.  We‘re going to tell you where he is going and how we could finally get some answers in the Natalee Holloway case, a big relief to that family from Alabama.

Then, an armed standoff with police, a beautiful little girl caught in the crossfire.  Now a neighborhood is outraged.  So is a city, claiming this is a classic case of racism.  The Reverend Al Sharpton is going to be in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY to talk about it.  We‘re just getting started.  Stay with us.  We‘ll be right back.


SCARBOROUGH:  A historic night and, I will guarantee you, friends, a night that could affect the future of American society.  Our Supreme Court coverage continues next with a man who used to be Judge Roberts‘ boss, plus, exclusive details in a new development in the Natalee Holloway case. 

That‘s coming up in a minute.


SCARBOROUGH:  You are looking, of course, at pictures of the president‘s deputy chief of staff, Karl—oh, I‘m sorry.  Actually, we‘re rolling new videotape.  This is pictures just minutes ago of the president‘s nominee returning home with his family tonight, Judge Roberts. 

He is expected to be a part of a brutal nomination process, but many people praising the president‘s selection tonight of a man who, in 1991, advocated the overturning of Roe v. Wade.  Of course, he—at the time, he was working for the president, and he used we, instead of I.  Larry Tribe has already weighed in, saying, though, that this is something that should cause many people concerns. 

I want to go right now, though, to Judge Ken Starr. 

Of course, Judge Starr, you had this man working for you at one point.  I want to read you what “The Washington Post” said about him.  I don‘t know if you always agree with “The Washington Post,” but you might here.  The final quote in the story they have tonight, actually quoting members of the D.C. Bar.  “He is a wonderful professional colleague, both because of his enormous skills and because of his unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness.”

This conservative sounds like a consensus pick tonight. 

KEN STARR, DEAN, PEPPERDINE LAW SCHOOL:  He is just spectacular.  He is one of the leading lawyers of his generation.  He has already had an outstanding record on the U.S. Court of Appeals. 

One of the great things about John is that he is so very, very bright, but he is also a pleasure for his judicial colleagues.  That I know from chatting with them.  He is, indeed, a consensus builder.  He is very fair-minded.  He is a mainstream conservative with this remarkable record.  And so, I think the country should be very grateful that the president has chosen one of the truly outstanding lawyers of our generation. 

It really reminds me of the choice of Lewis Powell Jr. that, as someone, although there, Justice Powell had no experience at all, but it was a renowned choice because he was viewed as one of the leading luminaries of his time.  And John Roberts, although younger, certainly fits that category or that bill. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Let‘s go to David Boies, another outstanding lawyer.

Let me ask you, David, what is your take on this selection tonight? 

Do you believe he too is a consensus conservative for the president? 

DAVID BOIES, AUTHOR, “COURTING JUSTICE”:  He is certainly a conservative.  I would actually agree with much of what Judge Starr says. 

John Roberts is a brilliant lawyer, a brilliant judge.  He is a very careful judge, a thoughtful judge.  I would agree with what the president said earlier.  He is a decent man.  I think everybody who knows him likes him.  He is a conservative.  But we‘re not going to get anybody who wasn‘t a conservative from this president. 

SCARBOROUGH:  I want to—obviously, I know—I know you have heard that he, in 1999 -- or 1991 -- wrote a brief for the president, argued that Roe v. Wade be overturned. 

BOIES:  Yes. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Do you think, David, that‘s going to cause a lot of concern for progressive liberal groups? 

BOIES:  I hope not.  That‘s really a red herring. 

When he was in the solicitor general‘s office, his job was to represent the views of the president.  And the views of that president was that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.  The fact that he represented the president in that case is no more relevant, in my view, than the fact that he represented the Playboy Channel in one case. 

In each case, he was representing his client.  I think that the issue of what he wrote in 1991, when he was working in the solicitor general‘s office, is really not the right issue to be focusing on. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Let—Ken Starr, let me ask you the same question.  He obviously, again, supported Roe v. Wade.  Or he supported the overturning of Roe v. Wade when he worked for the president.  Is there—do you expect people like Senator Schumer, Senator Clinton, Senator Durbin to use this against him and turn this fight into a bloody political battle? 

STARR:  I can‘t speculate, but what I do know is that, first of all, that was 14, almost 15 years ago, Joe.

And we also know that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled and that that has been the law of the land for lo these many years.  And so, David is exactly right.  What a lawyer does, including a lawyer in his official capacity serving in the United States Department of Justice and articulating the views of the administration, is one thing. 

What that individual as a judge or a justice might conclude and years later after that, with a lot of jurisprudence water over the dam, is really quite another.  So, I think it would be, as David has rightly said, a red herring to say, well, we are going to infer an ultimate view on the correctness of a particular decision by virtue of the position you took as a lawyer.  That‘s just wrong. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Howard Fineman, obviously, back in 1987, really, when these judicial wars began with the Robert Bork nomination, you actually had people sifting through Robert Bork‘s Blockbuster movie selections. 


SCARBOROUGH:  So, obviously, if you have a guy in his official capacity working, calling for the overturning of Roe v. Wade, I am afraid there are going to be some people that are going to climb down from the ivory tower and use it as a club to beat him about the head.  Am I being too cynical? 

FINEMAN:  No, not at all.  These people have already got their war chests filled.  They have got to spend the money, Joe, and they are going to spend the money.

But my point is, as the others have said, he was representing his client, which was the Bush administration, the first Bush administration, when he wrote that brief, or signed that brief.  He doesn‘t have any opinions as a judge that bear on this, as far as I know.  And, as I told you, people who know him personally tell me that they think that, on a personal level, on a spiritual level, perhaps, you might even say, that their instinct is that he is a guy who would like to perhaps, if given the chance or the right circumstances, attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade.

But you can‘t prove that, and you are not going to be able to get him to say any such thing during his confirmation hearing.  So, all of his opponents can pound the table and yell and scream all they want.  It—one of the things that is brilliant about this pick by the president is, this is a guy who radiates the sense of being a conservative on all kinds of things, but, in the case of Roe, you can‘t prove it.  And that‘s one of the many reasons why he is in very good shape, at least this first night tonight. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Let me get a quick prediction. 

David Boies, I want a prediction from you first.  Is George Bush going to get the 60 votes he needs to get his nominee an up-or-down vote on the floor? 

BOIES:  Yes. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And I will ask you the same thing, Judge Starr.  What do you believe? 

STARR:  Well, my political antenna are not sharp, but this is so qualified.


SCARBOROUGH:  Whatever. 

BOIES:  Come on.  Come on. 

STARR:  Then it would be—it would be—it would be—it would be amazing if he were not overwhelmingly confirmed, and I mean overwhelmingly.  Forget 60.  I think it‘s going to be difficult for a Democrat who views himself or herself as a mainstream Democrat to go against an eminently qualified nominee. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, Howard Fineman, I will ask you not to bathe in the same false modesty bath that Judge Starr just bathed in. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Up-or-down vote, is he going to get it? 

FINEMAN:  Sure, he will get it, and it will probably be big. 

All you need to know, in listening to David Boies, was to see the legend underneath his handsome face there, which said former Gore attorney.  That tells you everything you need to know about the political dynamics, at least tonight. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, he was just representing a client. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Come on.  David Boies is a uniter, not a divider. 

FINEMAN:  I know.  I know. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Thank you so much, gentlemen, for being with us.  We greatly appreciate it.  Now, let‘s go to Karen Pearl.  She‘s the interim president of planned parenthood.

Karen, what a time to be interim president of Planned Parenthood.  Obviously, this is going to be one of the most important battles that your organization has ever waged when it comes to the Supreme Court.  Obviously, Sandra Day O‘Connor seen as a moderate, certainly supported your position in 1989 with a landmark Missouri decision.  What is your position tonight for a man who argued for the abolition of Roe v. Wade back in 1991, two years after that landmark case? 

KAREN PEARL, INTERIM PRESIDENT, PLANNED PARENTHOOD:  Well, this is probably going to surprise you, but Planned Parenthood is not taking a position on Judge Roberts, because Judge Roberts, we don‘t really know where he stands on the issue of Roe v. Wade and on the issue of choice.

And we are going to encourage all of the senators to find that out, to ask questions, to probe deeply and find out where he stands on choice, on privacy, on contraception, on women‘s health and safety.  And we will not be taking a position on him until we hear the answers to those questions.  And if we hear the answers that he supports privacy and he supports women‘s health and safety, we will support him.

And if he doesn‘t support those things, then we won‘t.  But, right now, we don‘t know where he stands. 


SCARBOROUGH:  You know what?  And, of course, that‘s what makes—always makes this so difficult, whether you are talking about Eisenhower‘s two selections, President Bush‘s—the first President Bush‘s selection, when you talk about Souter. 

Also, this selection, we have been talking about Roe v. Wade, but, actually, he has had two different positions on Roe v. Wade, in a brief, of course, we have been talking about co-written by Judge Roberts while he was serving in the first Bush administration during an abortion case back in 1991.  This is specifically what he says—quote—“We continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled.”

But when pressed about that comment during his 2003 confirmation hearing, Roberts went on to say this—quote—“Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land.  There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”

So, Karen, in your position, where obviously there are a lot of people in your organization that are counting on you to defend Roe v. Wade, how do you look into the crystal ball and know whether this man is going to be right for your organization, right for your membership, or not? 

PEARL:  Well, I think that‘s exactly the right question. 

And Planned Parenthood is the most trusted provider of family planning services in this country.  And the people who count on us count on us to be thoughtful and careful and deliberative.  And so, we are not rushing to judgment about Judge Roberts. 

What we are doing—and I am very aware of both of those quotes that you have just read.  What we are trying to do is understand where he personally stands.  There is a difference, a very, very important difference between his confirmation process to the federal bench and his confirmation process to the Supreme Court. 

In the first case, he has to uphold the law, and he said he would.  In the second case, for the Supreme Court, he gets to craft the law, to shape the law.  And so, he is now at a different—we must apply a different standard to this, to his nomination this time, to ensure that, as he comes forward, it‘s very, very clear whether, in crafting the law, he will still support privacy and he will see it as it is, the law of this land. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Karen Pearl, thanks so much for being with us tonight.  We greatly appreciate it.  And we are going to come back to you and call on you in the coming weeks and—I don‘t think it‘s going to be months, but ask you to come back and give us an update on your position and the position of Planned Parenthood.  We greatly appreciate it. 

PEARL:  We would be happy to do that. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Now, let‘s—OK, thanks. 

Now, let me just tell you, for all of you watching out there, it‘s very important, when you listen to this segment, you listen to what Mr.  Boies said and Judge Starr said and Howard Fineman said, they talked about the 1991 opinion that he wrote actually suggesting that the court overturn Roe v. Wade.  He was a solicitor general at the time. 

And, of course, in 2003, he said he had absolutely no problem upholding Roe v. Wade as the law of the land, nothing in his personal makeup that would stop him from doing that, which really—it really—this is the one thing that gets lost in all of these hearings.  The fact is, all the world is a stage, and this judge has been a player in the solicitor general‘s office, also as a private lawyer and as a judge.

And it always has to be put in proper context.  Unfortunately, if you look at what happened with Robert Bork and Judge Thomas, it gets perverted by senators all too often.  Let‘s hope they don‘t make the same mistake this time. 

Will be right back in a second and tell you the latest developments in Aruba, some shocking developments that we think just may turn this case around. 

That‘s when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY continues. 



You‘re looking at exclusive video of one of the Kalpoe brothers going in, being forced to surrender his DNA to Aruban authorities, could be a big break in the case.  We are going to get to the bottom of it when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns. 

But, first, here‘s the latest news you and your family need to know. 



Again, you are looking at exclusive NBC News video.  You have got one of the Kalpoe brothers going into the hospital, being forced to surrender, forced to surrender their DNA by the district attorney of Aruba in a further investigation on this case. 

Now, for more for this latest development, let‘s go live to Aruba and get the very latest on the case from NBC‘s Michelle Kosinski. 

Michelle, what is the very latest?

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, NBC CORRESPONDENT:  Well, NBC News has learned, for the first time in this investigation that has spanned seven weeks now, prosecutors have ordered that the three suspects submit a blood sample for DNA testing to be used in some way in this case. 

Prosecutors haven‘t said why, but we expect to find that out soon.  They will release their reason for why they want this testing done and why now in this case.  So, we see Joran Van Der Sloot once again taken out of jail, led this time not to the beach where he says he left Natalee Holloway the morning she disappeared, but to the hospital to take that blood test. 

We also saw the Kalpoe brothers.  You are looking at video of Deepak - that‘s who we caught on tape—going to the hospital themselves and submitting of their own will.  Remember, they are out of jail at this point, but they are still considered under suspicion.  These are the young men who say they dropped off Natalee and Joran that morning on that beach. 

We talked to Natalee Holloway‘s mother tonight, and she told us a couple things about this.  Remember, at the same time this is going on, there are more FBI agents that flew to the island today.  They met with her this afternoon.  And FBI agents, as well as Dutch authorities, are now testing a piece of duct tape with hair attached to it.  It was found in a remote area of a national park.

So, things are going on in this case, but Beth Holloway tells us it‘s so difficult for her to get her hopes up about any new findings or new developments because her hopes have been dashed so many times in the past. 


BETH HOLLOWAY TWITTY, MOTHER OF NATALEE HOLLOWAY:  I think back to—we have been doing this, you know, for seven weeks now, and we have had so many—of course, everyone knows—but so many finds and things that we had to rule out or possibly, possibly, you know, sightings of Natalee. 

And we just—of course, it‘s always giving you the encouragement that you are that much closer to, all of a sudden, the phone is going to ring and you are going to have the answer.  You are going to know who is involved.  You‘re going to locate Natalee.  I feel like the answer will come—it could come just as quickly as it—as I got that phone call May 30 at 12:00 p.m. that she wasn‘t showing up for her flight.  I mean, I feel like it could happen that quickly.  And—but I just try to remain, you know, neutral. 


KOSINSKI:  Now, so many things seem to be happening at once right now at this moment, but are they connected?  That, we will have to wait and see. 

Again, we should know very soon, possibly tomorrow, what prosecutors‘ exact legal reason was for having these suspects submit their blood to be tested for DNA—Joe, back to you. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Do you have a sense—you sat down, obviously—we looked at that tape of Beth Holloway Twitty.  Do you get a sense at this point that she believes, that the family believes that the tragedy has occurred, that Natalee has passed away, and now all they want to do is find her body, have closure on this case?  Is that really what it‘s come down to now? 

KOSINSKI:  Well, they do talk about it in those terms, that they think something has happened.  They feel, as do investigators, that a crime has been committed. 

And they say, you know, when they see searchers looking at the bottoms of lakes and quarries, looking in caves, obviously, they know what those searchers are looking for.  But they also say they do hold out some hope that she might be alive somewhere, just because, in all of this time that has passed, there has been no trace of any evidence anywhere on this island that could be positively identified as being connected to Natalee. 

So, when we found this duct tape with the hairs on it, we are hearing all about this, yes, that looks like it might be something, but, once again, just because it‘s being tested doesn‘t mean that it will be connected.  And it could as well end in frustration for this family. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, Michelle Kosinski, as always, thanks a lot for bringing us your report from Aruba tonight.  We really do appreciate it. 

Now let‘s bring in a member of Natalee‘s family, her aunt, Marcia Twitty. 

You know, Marcia, this has been going on so long.  Obviously, I remember the first name talking to you on a cell phone that was breaking up.  It just seems like it goes on and on.  I will ask you the same question. 

I mean, we have got a quickening of evidence streaming in here, obviously, the boys being taken to the hospital, forced to deliver their DNA over to Aruban authorities, yesterday, blonde strands found on duct tape.  Is the family now to a point where they believe that the tragedy has occurred, and they just want to find out what happened, and they just want closure on this case? 

MARCIA TWITTY, AUNT OF NATALEE HOLLOWAY:  You know, Joe, we want the truth.  We so desperately want the truth, to find out what happened to Natalee. 

And I will tell you, you know, our minds will kind of run the gamut.  You know, you see all this stuff, but, at the same time, there is no concrete evidence that any of this belongs to Natalee.  I mean, we don‘t have a sandal.  We don‘t have a bracelet.  We don‘t have anything, you know, that points toward Natalee.

So, all of these things just keep getting thrown at us, but yet we really don‘t have the answers. 

SCARBOROUGH:  What is the family‘s—what is Beth‘s—how are—how is Beth doing?  How is Jug doing?  I understand, of course, that Natalee‘s father spoke with Joran Van Der Sloot‘s father over the weekend.  What is their state of mind right now? 

M. TWITTY:  You know, they are frustrated.  You know, you can only imagine what Jug and Beth and Dave Holloway have been through consistently for seven weeks. 

It‘s almost—even as close as I can get to it, it‘s almost unimaginable to what they are going through.  You know, they are tired, they are frustrated.  They want answers.  You know, we just—we have just got to help find some truth for her.  We really do. 

SCARBOROUGH:  No doubt about it. 

Final question tonight. 

M. TWITTY:  Yes. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And I always ask this of you.  What can we do to help? 

M. TWITTY:  You know, it‘s always keeping Jug and Beth and Dave and the family in everybody‘s thoughts and prayers.

And, again, you know, I keep saying it.  And I have said it to you a lot of times.  I think it‘s very important that we continue to put pressure on the government in Holland, the Dutch government, to intervene, and to be a part of that—that—what‘s going on in Aruba.  We need—they need help down there. 


SCARBOROUGH:  No doubt.  They need to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. 

M. TWITTY:  Yes.  Yes. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And, Marcia, so many of us—now, you all have been so diplomatic about this, but so many of us understand that the Dutch government has been the problem and not the solution, and that‘s why this tragedy has just played out as long as it has. 


SCARBOROUGH:  So, hey, Marcia, thanks a lot for being with us, a busy night for us, but we greatly appreciate you taking time to come out and tell us how the family is handling this tonight. 

Coming up next, we have got a lot more.  Al Sharpton is going to be here.  And you may be surprised about what he has to say about a controversial shooting in Los Angeles. 

That‘s when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns.


SCARBOROUGH:  Los Angeles Police release this grainy surveillance video of Jose Raul Pena in a July 10 standoff with police.  Pena used his 19-month-old daughter, Suzy, as a human shield.  The hours-long standoff ended tragically with a shoot-out that left Jose and his daughter, Suzy, dead. 

Authorities later determined that she was struck by a stray bullet fired by a police officer.  This is the little girl‘s funeral.  As you can imagine, many are outraged in Los Angeles, and some are even calling for officers involved in the shooting—what they‘re calling them are baby killers. 

With me now, from the National Action Network, we‘ve got the Reverend Al Sharpton with us. 

Reverend, I want to talk about this tragic case in one minute.  But, briefly, give me your response to President Bush‘s selection of Judge Roberts tonight. 

AL SHARPTON (D), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  Well, I think it was probably one of the best switch-and-bait moves I have seen in politics. 

We all get up this afternoon with Judge Clement, which would have been a terrible choice, as far as I am concerned, and then he gives us someone that appears to be more presentable.  Clearly, there are problems for many of us, the Roe vs. Wade position he took, the fact that he worked with Ken Starr.  I am sure there will be other things that we will object to.

But, I mean, one of the ways you have to deal with this is that, when they show you the absolute worst and give you something different, you almost feel relieved.  I am sure, once we look at the record, we may not be as relieved as we think we are. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Like you said, a political rope-a-dope.  Let‘s talk about this shooting in L.A., obviously a tragic shooting.  You were urging calm.  Tell me why.  What did you see out there?


SHARPTON:  I think that, first of all, this is definitely one of the most tragic situations I have ever seen.  And it is unthinkable to me how a man can use his daughter as a shield or hurt his other daughter. 

I mean, so, we are not talking about a situation where the family, as I spoke with them, are trying to get around those facts.  I think that the real issue here was whether or not the police behaved according to hostage policy, whether a sharpshooter should have been brought in, a lot of questions.

But I think, to go through those questions, we have to have a calm deliberation.  And we have to have the mayor, who has stepped forward and said, I will have a hands-on part in this investigation, we have to give him an opportunity to do that.  There have been cases that were cut-and-dry, that no one could see any kind of possible way this was done but an injustice. 

This is a situation, I think, that clearly this young lady is dead.  This baby is dead.  And we need to find out what the policy was.  And we need to give the mayor the opportunity to come forward, a mayor who, in his own career, has raised questions about police misconduct.  I think he has earned the right for the community to trust him, to bring through a fair and balanced investigation.  And he committed that when we were in church on Sunday. 


You know, Reverend, you look at the surveillance video of this poor little girl squeezing her daddy‘s neck, not knowing that she was being used as a human shield, and it really is heartbreaking.  Can you tell me how the Los Angeles community is handling it now?  Is there calm?  Are there a lot of angry cries out there?  Obviously, we heard the baby killer charges. 

SHARPTON:  Oh, there‘s a lot of anger.

SCARBOROUGH:  Would you say—would you say most L.A. residents are saying it‘s the guy‘s fault, and not the police? 

SHARPTON:  I mean, you hear a lot of anger.  I think that many of the citizens that I talked to have blamed the father.

But I think that everyone has agreed that we have got to also get to the bottom of this, if there was any police misconduct here, and stand with the family to have a real sense of justice and closure in this case.  But to look at those photos and to those that went to the funeral and the mother that was with us in church Sunday, there‘s no way we will not be committed to making sure that everything that is done that can possibly lead to examination of the policy here should be done, not excusing the behavior of the father at all. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Right.  All right.  Exactly. 

SHARPTON:  But we have had a situation here where we have other hostage situations.  There needs to be a comparison.  We need to look into this. 


Reverend, stay with us.  We‘ll be right back in a minute.


SCARBOROUGH:  A beautiful 19-month-old baby used as a human shield.  We‘ll be back with the Reverend Al Sharpton to get his report from Los Angeles when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns.


SCARBOROUGH:  Let‘s bring back the Reverend Al Sharpton. 

Reverend, a lot of charges of racism in the LAPD through the years. 

Do you think there still is racism in the department? 

SHARPTON:  Oh, unquestionably, I am sure there is still racism there.  I don‘t know where this case will lead, but I think because of the racism that still exists and the history is the reason the questions are being raised so vocally now.  If it had been another department, you might not have had the same reaction. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right. 

Reverend Al Sharpton from the National Action Network, thanks a lot for coming out tonight. 

SHARPTON:  Thank you. 

SCARBOROUGH:  A busy night, but we really appreciate you coming out and giving us that report from L.A.  And I hope you will continue to do that in the coming weeks, as the investigation moves forward. 

SHARPTON:  Thank you. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right. 

Hey, that‘s all the time we have tonight on a historic night.  President Bush, again, just to tell you again, selects Justice Roberts to be the next Supreme Court justice of the United States, a historic evening, a historic choice.  We are going to follow that. 

And make sure you watch Imus tomorrow morning.  His guests are going to include Senator John McCain. 

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 shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon MSNBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.

Watch Scarborough Country each weeknight at 10 p.m. ET


Discussion comments