updated 10/29/2005 4:49:39 PM ET 2005-10-29T20:49:39

Guests: Susan Cowsill, Robi Ludwig, Mary Fulginiti, Michael Cardoza, Kyle Tuominen, Stephen Moore, Tyson Slocum, Marlon Defillo

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST:  Tonight‘s top headline:  Bush survives one of his worst weeks.  The president‘s worst week comes to a close with the resignation of the vice president‘s chief of staff, who now faces possibly 30 years in prison. 

Plus, a breaking news story tonight—the New Orleans Police Department fires 50 of its own because they deserted their posts when Katrina roared in.  Now, we have got the latest tonight live, and we are going to be asking whether that city will ever get back to normal. 

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

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, thanks for being with us.  Hoping you are having a great Friday night.  We are going to have all those stories in just a minute, and we are going to talk to Jim Cramer from CNBC‘s “Mad Money.”  The guy is mad tonight, going to be talking about those huge profits oil companies are making, while our gas prices are going through the roof.  He is here for a SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY showdown.  We should call it a smackdown.  You are not going to want to miss this.  I think he calls everybody on the panel a Marxist and Trotskyite.

Then, big news in the case of the Goth kid accused of killing the lawyer‘s wife.  His mom walks out of jail, and wait until you hear what she did to get set free. 

But first big news from the Big Easy tonight:  45 cops were canned for abandoning the people they were supposed to protect while the floodwaters of Hurricane Katrina poured into the Big Easy. 

Now, for more on the story, let‘s go live to Travers Mackel of WDSU in New Orleans.

Travers, what have you got on this story? 

TRAVERS MACKEL, WDSU REPORTER:  Well, I will tell you what, Joe.  You hit the nail on the head, these 45 officers canned.  They were shown the door today.

These are 45 officers who left in the wake of Katrina.  These are the guys who left before it started.  They haven‘t made contact or tried to ask for their jobs back.  It‘s basically whereabouts unknown at this time for these officers. 

Now, in addition to that, 51 officers have resigned.  The NOPD accepted their resignations today.  Fifteen of those officers were under investigation for abandoning ship during Katrina, but here‘s the big number; 228 other officers out of 1,400 in the department are under investigation right now for abandoning their posts during Katrina. 

Now, this is the big gray area.  A lot of these officers stuck around for the storm, then maybe took off for a day, week, a month, and they are back now.  And the reasons they left, family reasons, personal reasons, health reasons.  But they are back now.  And those officers will be handled on a case-by-case basis.  It‘s all on an individual basis.  They are coming up in November, where they will have their due process and be investigated from there. 

Also, 13 officers are still under investigation for what role they may have played in looting in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, if they looted themselves or if they just didn‘t stop looters after the storm, so right now, a lot of investigation going on in the NOPD at this time.  And the mood here in New Orleans is one of I hate to say happiness, but we did a story today and we talked to a lot of people on the street.  And they said that if these officers abandoned ship, they are not the people they want protecting them in a time of crisis. 

If these 45 officers left and wouldn‘t stick up for them, then maybe they should go.  Now, I also spoke to the union president, Dave Benelli.  He‘s in charge of the police union here in New Orleans.  And he told me that he thinks New Orleans is being unfairly singled out, the New Orleans Police Department, that police departments all throughout the Gulf South had officers who were taking off during the storm, and he feels that officers in New Orleans are being scrutinized and singled out and that police departments all throughout the Gulf South had officers who abandoned ship in this time of crisis—Joe. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Thanks so much, Travers Mackel from WDSU. 

Greatly appreciate that report.  Really got us up to date with it. 

Now let‘s bring in New Orleans resident and historian Doug Brinkley, who joins us on the phone. 

Doug, great to talk to you again about this developing story. 

So, the union president says New Orleans cops were singled out, despite the fact we have got images of looting, images of beating that poor black man, and, of course, abandonment.  We also have images of them just driving through the neighborhoods right by the Convention Center and basically not stopping to help. 

I mean, this has got to be one of the worst police departments performances in recent American history, doesn‘t it? 


The New Orleans Police Department is in disarray right now.  I have been interviewing for a book I am working on about—over 12 police officers.  There‘s a lot of anger within the department because some cops know who the bad cops are.  There were some police that rightfully commandeered things during the storm and afterwards, but there are other policemen that took advantage of it, looted. 

You have to keep in mind that this police department pre-Katrina was really about to go under investigation in a serious way.  The murder rate in New Orleans was 10 times the national average.  Any number of police officers were being charged for crimes.  It was a very—of course, there are some great police officers that work in New Orleans, but, by and large, it was in the bottom ranking of American police departments. 


SCARBOROUGH:  And, Doug, we also had the beatings going on after the storm had passed, right? 

BRINKLEY:  Well, that‘s right.  And that was caught on video. 

And what needs to happen here is not Mr. Riley, the new police commissioner, simply to say to people—you know, the people that got fired today were ones who already left.  They had quit.  They didn‘t even take the time to fire—to resign or do anything.  They just disappeared. 

It gives you a bit of an idea of what that department was like., meaning if they had to leave with their family and move to safe ground, to Texas or Oklahoma, you would think they would have gotten back to the police department and said, look, guys, I left, goodbye.  But they don‘t even do that courtesy. 

We have a very serious problem with the police department in New Orleans.  It is starting to be addressed, but until people feel two basic things in the city, say that they feel safe with their police, security, and that the hospitals can provide proper medical attention, it‘s going to be very hard to get New Orleans going back in any kind of quasi-normal fashion. 

SCARBOROUGH:  You know, Doug—stay with me, Doug.

I want to bring in Captain Marlon Defillo right now.  He‘s with the New Orleans Police Department. 

Captain, I know there are a lot of people in New Orleans pleased about the recent developments and hopeful that the new—the new change in the top can make a difference.  But, man, how—how far does the New Orleans Police Department have to go before they can regain the respect of the people that they need to be respected by the most? 

CAPTAIN MARLON DEFILLO, NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT:  Let me just say.  This department is not in disarray.  The vast majority of the men and women in this department are professionals. 

They have shown their professionalism over the past eight weeks.  There are a number of police officers who have lost their loved ones, their mother, their grandmothers, their children, in this horrific, horrific event, and remain on this job today.  So, a lot of credit goes to the folks who are out here every day putting their lives on the line. 


SCARBOROUGH:  And, Captain, let me just say this.  Captain, I want to interrupt because you make a great point.  There are great cops out there that are doing their best and put their lives on the line.  Unfortunately, again, we saw the beatings, the lootings, the abandonment. 

Obviously, you got to admit, New Orleans has had a bigger problem than most cities.  Like, for instance, cops didn‘t do this in Mississippi, did they? 


DEFILLO:  Well, I think that New Orleans is under the microscope right now.  We have—of course, when Katrina hit New Orleans, we had dozens and dozens and dozens of national and state and local media here in the city, so, of course, New Orleans has been in the national spotlight for several weeks.

And unfortunately there was an incident on Bourbon Street, and unfortunately, we had to suspend three police officers, but that is not indicative of the entire police force.  I don‘t want to see—I hate to see a complete indictment on this department.  We have a very fine police department here, and many of the locals that I have spoken with—and I have listened to the talk shows, the local talk shows—are in support of their police department. 

In my office, I have three large boxes of thank-you cards from citizens who appreciate this department, and I am not going to let a few bad apples in this department tarnish this entire department. 


SCARBOROUGH:  All right, Captain.  We greatly appreciate it, Captain.  And, certainly, all of us hope that you all can move forward from, again, a disastrous situation, not just for the police department, but from all of New Orleans. 

I just got to say, again, we see these images of police beatings, and, again, you need to be on the ground to see exactly what happened there.  It certainly looks bad in that situation, but when you have an issue of abandonment—and I have been hearing time and time again that, well, there were problems across Gulf Coast.  These people were just going to see their family members. 

Listen, they have got such a huge responsibility to take care of the people of New Orleans.  And, again, compare what happened in New Orleans with what happened with the cops in Mississippi—boy, the difference between night and day. 

Now, coming up next, there‘s only one Jim Cramer, and he‘s in



JIM CRAMER, HOST, “MAD MONEY”:  ... we got to (INAUDIBLE) back the nuclear power, listen to what France does, look what Cuba does, and that‘s the answer. 


SCARBOROUGH:  And that was his answer to my first question.  And I am asking, are big oil companies making record profits on the backs of middle-class Americans who are paying more every day for gas?  It‘s a wild ride in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY coming up next.

And then, the accused Goth killer, now a stunning twist.  The unbelievable deal his own mother made with prosecutors. 

We have got a big Friday night coming up.  Stay with us. 


SCARBOROUGH:  OK.  So, I want somebody to explain this to me.  You and I are paying more for gas at the pump every day than ever before.  And yet at the same time, oil companies are having record-setting quarters.  What‘s going on here?  Is it price-gouging?

That story next.



Now, you have been hammered at the pump all summer long, and even into the fall, while ExxonMobil has been rolling up its biggest quarter profits ever, $9.9 billion.  And it‘s not just ExxonMobil.  The oil profits are skyrocketing across the board. 

Now, this year, with gas prices at an average of $2.70, the 29 major oil companies, well, they are expecting to earn $96 billion.  Two years ago, when a gallon of gas was $1.50, their profits were less than half of that.  I wonder when we Americans are going to finally say enough is enough and demand that our political and business leaders begin aggressively working to free our nation from its addiction to oil right now, where oil dependency causes us to get slammed at the pump, fund terrorists across the globe, and pollute the air that our children breathe, and it is an issue that has Americans boiling mad, and has lawmakers, even Republican lawmakers I talked to in Washington this week, trying to tax big oil, because their massive profits seem to be coming at the expense of many Americans who can least afford these sharp increases. 

Now, I say forget about the taxes.  Let‘s talk about long-term solutions, and also who is to blame for the pillaging at the pumps. 


SCARBOROUGH:  I am joined now by Jim Cramer.  He does a great show, “Mad Money.”  And, also, we have got Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen.

Jim, I want to start with you. 

CRAMER:  Sure. 

SCARBOROUGH:  You know, the $64,000 question this week, after you see these unbelievable profits coming from these oil companies, while the rest of us are paying higher and higher gas prices, are these guys corporate bandits or...

CRAMER:  No, come on. 

SCARBOROUGH:  ... are they just taking advantage of a competitive...


CRAMER:  This has been a crummy business for 18 years. 

Finally, these guys are making a little bit of change, and we want to take it away from them.  Let‘s hope that they are able to reinvest it and the environmentalists don‘t keep them from building the refineries and drilling where we need it. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Tyson Slocum, what do you think?

TYSON SLOCUM, ENERGY DIRECTOR, PUBLIC CITIZEN:  First of all, we are finding profit margins are through the roof, not because the oil industry is coming up with great innovations, but because they have been buying out all their competitors.  We have seen merger...

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, Tyson, but let me ask you something, though. 

Hold on a second. 

SLOCUM:  Yes. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Are they gouging us at the pumps? 

SLOCUM:  They‘re gouging us at the pump.  They‘re gouging us at every stage of production.  Remember, ExxonMobil is a vertically integrated monopoly.  They produce oil in the United States and all over the world.  They own oil refineries, where they‘re turning that crude oil into gasoline.  And they‘re sending that gasoline out to their affiliated stations.

CRAMER:  They are making so little money.  This is—where did you get this guy? 

They don‘t make no...


CRAMER:  Look, cumulatively, they had a big quarter, but, for years, refining has been such a bad business.  When it‘s bad, they get to suffer, but, when it‘s good, you get to take the money? 

SLOCUM:  Cramer, in the last couple of years, the industry has gone under a radical restructuring.  We have seen ExxonMobil merge, Chevron/Texaco, ConocoPhillips.  Valero brought out three other refining companies. 

It‘s not the same industry in the ‘90s.  They are not making money because of innovation.  They‘re making money because they have squelched competition.  That‘s not the American way.  They‘re price-gouging Americans.

CRAMER:  Where did you get Lenin?  I haven‘t seen Lenin.  You don‘t look like him, but you sure do talk like him.  Come on, this isn‘t a means of production issue.  This company, Exxon, made a lot of money.  It had been making just a little bit of money since 1982.  Suddenly, they are making some money, and Lenin surfaces. 

SLOCUM:  Well, why are you talking about past history?  I am talking about present history.  I‘m not talking about price-gouging in 1982.  I‘m talking about price-gouging in 2005. 

CRAMER:  They are not gouging. 

SLOCUM:  It‘s going on.  And, right now, consumers are suffering. 

The economy is suffering, and this winter is going to be a crisis for millions of Americans. 

CRAMER:  So, in other words, forget capitalism.  When things are good for Exxon, we ought to just take all that money away.  When things are bad, sorry that you are in a crummy business?  Is that the way it plays out?

SLOCUM:  I guess what Enron did in California was capitalism, huh? 

Just blame it on the environmentalists.

CRAMER:  No.  Hey, come on. 


CRAMER:  I testified to the grand jury on that.  Don‘t come to me with that. 

SLOCUM:  It‘s the same thing.

CRAMER:  I was the guy who went right to the California authorities, because I knew about that rigging. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Jim, I want to ask you, what do you say, though, to people in Middle America who see oil prices going up, gas prices going up?  This winter, there are going to be a lot of people suffering in the Northeast.  Again, the people that can afford it the least are the ones that are going to be paying the most, proportionately.

What do you say to them when they say, it just doesn‘t make any sense to us that we are paying more and the oil companies are getting rich. 


First of all, these oil companies are not—they don‘t—most of them don‘t own a lot—that much oil.  They are refining.  You can take a look at the breakout refining margins.  Yes, refining margins have popped right here, but they have been under pressure. 

Look, I am in a complete beat them, can‘t beat them, join them mode.  I would tell these people that, look, these companies are going to be making some money for a while.  Go own the stocks.  Now, if they don‘t have the money on the stocks, I understand.  But it‘s just a brief blip up that they are benefiting from after 18 years of not doing well. 

And I can‘t sit here and have those profits taxed away, because we need those companies to reinvest or else gasoline will go through the roof. 


SLOCUM:  Gasoline is going through the roof because of uncompetitive actions by a handful of big oil companies that control the market.  Proof. 

SCARBOROUGH:  So, you are saying...


CRAMER:  You think it was a big oligopoly?  You think they sit in a room?  You‘re think they‘re in a room?  Like, they‘re at the Hilton? 


SLOCUM:  The United States Federal Trade Commission did a major investigation of this stuff. 

In 2001, before most of the mergers, they concluded that oil companies were unilaterally withholding and manipulating the market.  In March 2004, the United States Government Accountability Office, the research arm of Congress, concluded that all the recent mergers directly led to higher gasoline prices. 



SLOCUM:  The proof is in the numbers.

SCARBOROUGH:  Would you be able—how can you tell us how these oil prices are set?  I mean, do you really think that it‘s Adam Smith‘s invisible hand?

CRAMER:  I tell you, they are set because we don‘t have enough refining—we don‘t have enough refining capacity in this country.  These guys would love...


SLOCUM:  I thought the market was supposed to take care of that. 

CRAMER:  Talk to Bill Greehey at Valero.  He would love to build a refining in my backyard, but all the neighbors around me say no.  He wants to put up a lot of refineries, but we don‘t let him do it.  He has got excess capital.  He wants to build. 

SLOCUM:  I got three words for you, Arizona Clean Fuels.  It‘s a small independent company outside of Phoenix, Arizona.  They have applied and received state air quality permits, federal air quality permits.  You are telling me that ExxonMobil, that‘s got like $40 billion in cash lying around, can‘t do the same thing that a small business in Arizona can?  That‘s ridiculous. 


CRAMER:  That is enough for—like, for your Hummer. 

I mean, look, you got to understand, this is a business that we have historically said, you cannot build refineries in this country.  It‘s not worth it for Exxon to sink that money in.  If you free that up, that money will go into refining capacity, because now there‘s a good return.  But if we are just going to tax away the money they‘re going to make, you are never going to see it.

They‘re just going to just forget about building the capacity that we need, and prices will keep rising.  That‘s what will happen with your view. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Gentlemen, stay with us.

SLOCUM:  I‘m glad that you‘re apologizing for the oil companies. 

SCARBOROUGH:  I want to bring in, though, right now Stephen Moore.

Stephen, you wrote an article today in “The Wall Street Journal.”  And, listen, you have also been involved in politics.  We have talked on Capitol Hill about this. 


SCARBOROUGH:  I talked to Republican strategists yesterday.  They are very concerned that this issue is going to hurt the Republican Party, because the Bush White House is connected to oil companies, and a lot of people out there were already angry enough until they saw that Exxon and other oil companies were posting record profits.  Something just doesn‘t seem right, does it? 

MOORE:  Yes, well, profits in Washington is a dirty word.  And windfall profits for a lot of congressmen is a redundancy.  They think any profit is...

SCARBOROUGH:  OK.  Hold on a second, though, Stephen.  We agree on most things, but here it ain‘t Washington that is as angry as it is the Middle America. 

MOORE:  Oh, of course.  The public...

SCARBOROUGH:  I mean, people that are going to the pumps and they are getting squeezed because they hear that oil prices are going up, and yet oil companies are making record profits. 

MOORE:  Of course.

Well, but, look, this is a replay of what we saw in the 1970s.  And we tried the same type of thing.  We tried to impose price controls on the oil companies, and then windfall profits tax.  What happened?  Our domestic production went way down.  We became more dependent on foreign oil.  Ronald Reagan became president.  In one stroke of the pen, he repealed those laws, and the oil crisis went away.  So, let‘s not repeat the mistakes of the 1970s. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Jim, what about that? 

CRAMER:  I couldn‘t agree more. 

I mean, that‘s exactly how we got in the fix.  These companies really want to drill in this country.  We should be working to try to figure out ways to make it so that they can go to ANWR, that they can go off the Florida coast.  They want to sink the money in this country.  This is the best place to drill, but people won‘t let them. 

SLOCUM:  We are the third...


MOORE:  Jim is right about this, though, because, you know, for the last 15 years, liberals have tried to make gasoline as expensive as possible by not allowing refineries to be built, by taxing it.  You know, you talk about the...


CRAMER:  Steve, it‘s not just liberals.  Nobody wants these things next to them. 


SLOCUM:  This is ridiculous. 


SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Let me bring in Tyson.  Hold on a second. 

Tyson is being teamed up on.



SLOCUM:  Yes. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Tyson, is it the blame of environmentalists who won‘t allow refineries...

SLOCUM:  That is ridiculous. 

SCARBOROUGH:  ... won‘t allow drilling in Alaska, won‘t allow drilling in Florida, won‘t allow it in California?


SLOCUM:  Environmentalists aren‘t even close to being in power. 

Congress is controlled by the Republicans.  The White House is controlled by the Republicans.  They are gutting environmental laws.  It‘s not the environmentalists‘ law.  The United States in 2005 is the third largest crude oil producer in the world.  Only the Saudis and the Russians produce more than we do. 

Sure, we can follow the Nigerian model of economic development and try to become the biggest oil producer.  Physically, we can‘t do it.  Even if we produced as much oil as Saudi Arabia, we would still be importing half our own oil.  This is just what companies and their apologists do when they are making these profits, is, they blame environmentalists.  That‘s what Enron did during the California energy crisis.


CRAMER:  If this was such a great business, why have these stocks been so bad for 20 years? 

SLOCUM:  We are not talking about 20 years.


CRAMER:  If they‘re making so much money, why have these been the crummiest investments in the S&P?

SLOCUM:  We are talking about the past five years.  Oil companies are doing great. 


CRAMER:  Oh, please.  Man, what a dog. 

If you put your money in these, -- the (INAUDIBLE) investors will take it away.  Finally, we got 18 months of out-performance, after 20 years of bad performance. 


MOORE:  Also, on the profits issue, let me just make this point. 

CRAMER:  I would rather be in Colgate. 


MOORE:  Let me make this point about profits. 

You know, you talk about these greedy profits the oil companies make. 

You know what?  Governments have made more profit off of oil over the last

20 years than oil companies have.  The taxes on oil over the last 20 years

I just looked up these numbers today -- $1.3 trillion of taxes paid on oil.  The profits of the oil companies have only been $650. 


SLOCUM:  Oh, the poor oil companies.  I am so sorry that the government is taxing oil companies to death. 


MOORE:  If you want to make oil cheaper and gas cheaper, let‘s cut the gas tax. 

SLOCUM:  That is ridiculous.  Gas tax pays for necessary programs. 


CRAMER:  We don‘t want that.

SCARBOROUGH:  Jim, I want to go to you, a final word.

But Jim, I got to say—and, again, I am conservative on most issues.  On this one, though, I just don‘t understand.  I don‘t understand how we are captives to Middle East oil.  I don‘t understand why we have been whining about needing alternative fuel sources for 30 years and yet we aren‘t developing them.  I see these prices...


CRAMER:  Joe, I got to tell you.  France...

SCARBOROUGH:  I see prices shoot up, and the people that can afford it the least, middle-class, working-class people, are the ones who are hurt the most.  When are we going to look for an alternative fuel source, so we aren‘t owned by OPEC?

CRAMER:  We need to look to France, France and Cuba.  They are the leaders in nuc—could you imagine this?


CRAMER:  The guy—the Marxist must like this. 

We got to—look, if you want to get into this game, we got to (INAUDIBLE) back the nuclear power.  Listen to what France does.  Look what Cuba does.  And that‘s the answer. 



MOORE:  France gets 80 percent of their electricity from nukes.


CRAMER:  Is that Ingalls (ph) in there? 

SCARBOROUGH:  Guys, guys, hold on.  I was going to leave it at that, what a great way to exit, except, Tyson, I think you were just called a Marxist.  I think it‘s sort of a rule in SCARBOROUGH...

CRAMER:  No, Ingalls, Ingalls.  I have yet to use Carl Marx.  I was saving that for the end. 


SLOCUM:  I am promoting competition, not socialism. 

SCARBOROUGH:  So, anyway, Tyson, whenever, whenever somebody is compared to Marx or Ingalls, they get the last word in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY. 

Go ahead.

CRAMER:  What is to be done there, little guy? 

SLOCUM:  The fact is, is, we just passed an energy bill that gives $6 billion in tax subsidies to these same profitable oil companies.  As Joe said, we need to reinvest that money into protecting people this winter and investing in alternatives, so that we are not so dependent on foreign sources of energy. 

MOORE:  Yes.  Get rid of the subsidies.  I am all for that. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Gentlemen.


SCARBOROUGH:  And I am all for that, too.  And there are a lot of subsidies.  And, for the life me, I can‘t figure out why this energy bill gave tax incentives to big oil...

SLOCUM:  Me either..

SCARBOROUGH:  ... when they are making more money than ever before. 

Gentlemen, thank you so much for being with us. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Jim Cramer, especially.  The sound effects, unbelievable.  Tyson, as always.  

Stephen Moore, thank you for...



SCARBOROUGH:  Thanks.  Thanks for being with us. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Oh, my gosh. 

Coming up next, new developments tonight in the case of accused Goth killer, his mother‘s stunning decision that may turn the case upside down.  Plus, we are going to be talking to one of the accused‘s killer‘s best friends to learn more details about the Boy Scout who became a Goth and possibly a murderer.

Plus, the Cowsills, the singing family that inspired the real-life Partridge Family.  Well, tonight, they are desperately searching for their brother, Barry.  Once a teen idol, now he‘s one of thousands of Americans still separated from their families by our government‘s lack of leadership after Hurricane Katrina hit.  We will have their story coming up. 

Stick around.


SCARBOROUGH:  Bush battered and bruised this week, but ends the week on a high note.  We are going to be talking about that with a former Washington insider who has seen it all. 

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


SCARBOROUGH:  Welcome back. 

A bombshell in Washington today, as the vice president‘s top aide resigns after being indicted on five counts of, well, basically not telling the truth. 

With me now to talk about it is MSNBC analyst Pat Buchanan. 

You know, Pat, politics is so funny.  You got the bad news today of the indictment, a lot of people are saying the bad news of Harriet Miers yesterday.  I would say that Bush and the administration had a pretty great Thursday and Friday—Rove not indicted.  And he has got a chance to put a conservative on the court and win his base back.  What do you say? 

PAT BUCHANAN, NBC POLITICAL ANALYST:  I think you have got a lot—you are right there, Joe.  Look...



BUCHANAN:  They got Butch, and Sundance got away. 


BUCHANAN:  You know, the special prosecutor...


BUCHANAN:  But you are exactly right.  Look, he‘s got—look, the Miers thing, nobody is talking about it today.  He has got a chance to put a great conservative on the court, unite his base. 

Look, what happened today, Libby, they got him.  It looks like they nailed him on perjury and obstruction of justice in an investigation of a crime Libby apparently didn‘t commit.  Nobody outed Valerie Plame.  There‘s no conspiracy.  They didn‘t go after Karl Rove.  The investigation is winding down.  The investigator says, look, this is not going to be an investigation of the war.

SCARBOROUGH:  Wait a second, Pat.  You say it‘s winding down. 


SCARBOROUGH:  You say the investigation is winding down, but he has extended the investigation.  Don‘t you think he can figure out after two years whether Karl Rove lied or not? 

BUCHANAN:  Exactly. 

You know what‘s he done?  The grand jury has gone home.  What he is saying, in effect, Karl Rove went in there, is my guess, and made a very good case, said, look, I didn‘t mention the Cooper thing.  I fouled up.  I was right on this.  I was right on that.  I fouled up.  I made a mistake.  It‘s not worthy of an indictment. 

I think this guy, Patrick Fitzgerald, I think he‘s a good guy.  I

think he‘s a conservative guy.  He went after Libby because he says Libby -

he business he has lied and lied and lied.  But everybody else, he said, look, I didn‘t even prove the basic case that Valerie Plame was deliberately, maliciously outed as a CIA agent, because I didn‘t have the goods to prove it. 

I have been lied to, but I didn‘t have the goods to prove it, so I am not going to indict.  I think the administration has got itself one of the better special prosecutors that I have seen in my lifetime in this city. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Boy, I‘ll tell you what, Pat.  The guy seems to be tough, no-nonsense. 

BUCHANAN:  Right. 

SCARBOROUGH:  I still think it‘s going to be hard for him to get this guy put away, but I am a big believer, Pat—we heard during the Clinton impeachment that just because the president lied about sex under oath before a federal grand jury didn‘t really matter.  I think if you lie before a federal grand jury, no matter what you are talking about, you should go to jail.  Don‘t you think that‘s a very serious charge in and of itself? 


BUCHANAN:  Look, it‘s deadly serious. 

Those are the charges for which a lot of us said, look, Bill Clinton, for the lying and the obstruction of justice and subornation of perjury, he ought to be impeached and he ought to be removed from office.  If our guys had done that, the same thing should happen to them.  Only, they go to jail because they are not president of the United States.  So, I agree with Fitzgerald. 

If he believes that happened, he ought to go after the guy, but the interesting thing is, if Scooter Libby had not lied and had told the truth, like every other person, who apparently did tell the truth, that, look, we were taking—trying to take down Wilson, but we didn‘t out his wife, none of them was indicted, Joe.  If he had told the truth, this thing might have been over right now. 


I will tell you what.  So many people try to be clever by half, but memo to everybody listening tonight.  If you go before a federal grand jury, you better tell the truth or you are going to jail. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, Pat, thanks a lot for being with us. 


SCARBOROUGH:  My prediction, we are going to see the Bush administration turn the corner.  I think we have seen the low point of the Bush administration.  A lot of good things still ahead. 

BUCHANAN:  Climbing uphill. 


SCARBOROUGH:  I think so, up a very steep hill. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Now on to accused Goth killer Scott Dyleski.  He remains in jail tonight, accused of murdering Pamela Vitale, the wife of the attorney Daniel Horowitz.

But, in a stunning twist in the story, his mother has actually gotten out of jail, after reportedly agreeing to testify against her own son.  Boy, that‘s a mom that you want. 

Let‘s go live to California and get the very latest from MSNBC‘s Jennifer London. 

Jennifer, you were here last night.  We had the development that the mother had been thrown into prison.  Now tonight, this thing gets crazier by the day.  She is out, and she is going to go after her own son in court.  Talk about it. 


It certainly came as a surprise last night when we learned that Scott Dyleski‘s mother, Esther Fielding, had been arrested and charged as an accessory to the murder of Pamela Vitale.  Last night, Fielding was being held on $500,000 bail.  Well, tonight, we are learning that all charges against Fielding have been dropped, after she reportedly agreed to testify against her own son. 

Fielding was in a California courtroom late this afternoon, and the prosecutor says, while they do believe that Fielding may have helped her son destroy evidence related to the crime, they would not press charges if she would agree to testify.  The prosecution says her 16-year-old son killed Pamela Vitale on October 15. 

Scott Dyleski has been charged with first-degree murder, and he will be tried as an adult.  According to an affidavit and a search warrant, on the night of the murder, Dyleski‘s mother, Esther Fielding, reportedly told her son to spend the night at his girlfriend‘s, saying there was too much police activity in the area. 

Joe, Scott Dyleski is scheduled to appear back in court on November 9. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, thanks so much, Jennifer London.  Greatly appreciate it. 

Now I want to bring in a young man who grew up with Scott Dyleski and considers him to be a close friend.  Kyle Tuominen is a 16-year-old high school junior.  And he joins us on the phone. 

Kyle, thank you so much for being with us. 

And I know you have seen it a hundred times this past week, past couple weeks, where you see the three pictures of your friend, and how he has undergoes this radical transformation over the past three years.  Can you give us a little bit of insight on how this happened to your friend, what you saw happen to your friend over the past three years? 

KYLE TUOMINEN, FRIEND OF SCOTT DYLESKI:  Well, for one, it was—it wasn‘t exactly a very—it wasn‘t sudden, as many people have reported, that it just happened right after his sister died. 

I mean, it was—it happened consistently.  And then—I mean, it deepened.  It deepened after his sister‘s death, but he was always—I think most of it was that he was classified as a misfit, so he felt the need to play the part.  And so he did.  And it‘s—I mean, you can see from the pictures that, slowly, he just got darker and darker. 

SCARBOROUGH:  But you have known him for a very long time, and you said, basically, he was a good guy, that you liked him.  He was a Boy Scout, that, actually, he came to the defense of other students who were being bullied and picked on in the school.  Isn‘t that also a part of his personality a few years back? 

TUOMINEN:  Oh, it‘s been his personality up until now. 

I mean, it has always been—he would rather have somebody pick on himself than anybody else.  And he is a nice kid.  He opened doors for girls.  I mean, he was very polite.  He was picked on.  And then he didn‘t respond, and so, eventually, people just moved on.  And he figured out that you, you know, if the people don‘t respond, that the boys are going to stop, and that‘s what he tried to help others do. 

SCARBOROUGH:  So, Kyle, what do you think happened? 

TUOMINEN:  In reference to what? 

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, just in—just in reference to the dramatic change, the trouble that he got into.  Obviously, he is accused of this crime.  Do you think he is capable of doing that? 

TUOMINEN:  Physically, I don‘t think he is capable.  Mentally, I don‘t even think he is capable either. 

I just—he isn‘t the type of kid that would strike me as someone that would even attempt to do it. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right. 

Thanks so much, Kyle.  Greatly appreciate you being with us tonight, and offering us some insight to a guy that you have known for some time.  We are obviously going to be following the case as it moves forward. 

Now, if true, what could drive a 16-year-old kid to commit such a horrific murder?  We have got an all-star panel of experts coming up, and I am going to ask them the question, is the mother to blame for driving him to kill? 

And, later, pop idol Barry Cowsill, one of the thousands missing in Katrina-ravaged New Orleans.  His sister is in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY tonight to talk about how the government is failing her and hundreds of other families. 


SCARBOROUGH:  You know, if this small, slight kid did commit the horrendous murder that everybody is talking about, is his mother to blame? 

Let‘s bring in our all-star panel.  Dr. Robi Ludwig is a psychotherapist.  Mary Fulginiti is a former federal prosecutor.  We also have Michael Cardoza.  He‘s a criminal defense attorney. 

Mary, I want to start with you.  How unusual is it for a mother to get pulled into a case like this, and then immediately decide that she is going to walk by ratting out her son? 

MARY FULGINITI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR:  Yes, I have to tell you, Joe, I was completely shocked to hear that news. 

Last night, the mother was, you know, charged or accused of and arrested of being an accessory after the fact to murder, and less than 24 hours later, the entire charge has been dismissed against her, and—in agreement for her cooperation to testify against her son. 

What is unusual here is two things, one, that she has been given a complete pass.  That is typically not the case.  When somebody cooperates against somebody, regardless of who they are and their relationship to that person, you don‘t necessarily give them a complete pass.  What you would is give them some sort of reduction in a sentence.

But, in this case, I have to think that maybe they just didn‘t have a very strong case against the mother.  And they used pretty strong antics in charging her, in hoping that she would ultimately agree to testify. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Apparently, the word out there, Mary, is that there was

there may have been a bloody glove in her car.  She may have had helped destroy evidence.  Again, that‘s the word that we are getting out there. 

If those charges were proven, that‘s very, very serious, and she could have spent a lot of time in jail, right? 

FULGINITI:  No, that‘s absolutely right. 

And I have to tell you, if they believe that she concealed evidence or information, I would be surprised that they would have just given her a complete pass.  I am not so sure that was what the focus was for the accessory after the fact, but we have also heard information from an affidavit that she had a conversation with her son a couple of hours after the murder, telling him to stay in Walnut Creek, stay at the girlfriend‘s house, don‘t come home, because the roads were clogged due to police activity.

So, you know, if she knew he committed a crime, then she would have potentially obviously been guilty of being an accessory after the fact, but I think that was the whole, and I am not so sure what information they had to support that. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Doctor, talk about this dysfunctional mother-son relationship. 

ROBI LUDWIG, PSYCHOTHERAPIST:  Yes, it sounds like the Paulus van der Sloot school of parenting.


LUDWIG:  That, if your child does something wrong, let‘s just cover it up. 

We don‘t know what this mother‘s guilt level was, and perhaps she didn‘t realize her son was so far gone until she saw the bloody evidence right in front of her very eyes.  This was a child who was struggling and going downhill, and the signs were pretty glaringly apparent.  This child wasn‘t even at school—in school at the time of the crime. 

But this woman sounds he eccentric at best anyway.  I mean, she has an Internet site that talks about DNA replacement therapy in order to heal your life, and, right under her nose, her child is really deteriorating, involved in credit card scams and ultimately, potentially, murder.  So, this boy had a lot of aggression.  And we do know about adolescents that sometimes they are vulnerable to increased anger, not being able to tolerate that anger, and that violence doesn‘t happen in isolation. 

It happens within a social context.  So, it is natural to look at the family.



Michael, you talked to Mr. Horowitz yesterday.  First of all, how is he doing?  And, secondly, help answer something for me.  What doesn‘t add up for me is how I keep hearing how slight this young man was.  And...


SCARBOROUGH:  And Ms. Vitale appeared to be, you know, fairly large. 

CARDOZA:  OK.  Joe...

SCARBOROUGH:  I don‘t know how he could do it himself. 


CARDOZA:  Think about it.

What happens here, we have got a kid that is, what, 5‘5“, maybe 110, 120 pounds.  Remember, she was cut in the stomach.  She had a four-inch-deep wound in her stomach.  You do that to anybody, I would imagine that‘s going to take the steam out of them, and then come the 39 blows to the head.  I can see exactly how it could happen.

But I know how you could think that.  You know, well, he is a little tiny guy.  How he could overpower a person that is bigger.  That‘s exactly how you overpower. 

But other people are talking about, you know, the mom is going to testify against the son.  What the district attorney said in court today—and these guys are very smart, good prosecutors—and I would imagine they have got a pretty good plan in place.  But what they said to her was, before they dismissed, will you tell the truth?

That doesn‘t mean she is going to testify against her kid.  That could be the truth as she knows it.  So I am waiting to see this thing develop.  I would imagine they are going to go to grand jury.  They are going to put her in there, and what they might be doing is taking her out of the game with the threat, you know, if you don‘t tell the truth the way we know it, then we will bring the charges back. 

I am telling you, this is going to be real interesting as it plays out.  But all she promised to do, the way I understand it is, to tell the truth. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Thank you so much.  Greatly appreciate you all being with us, Dr. Robi Ludwig, Mary Fulginiti and Michael Cardoza.  I look forward to talking to you again on this case. 

I‘m joined now by Tucker Carlson.  He‘s the host of “THE SITUATION


Tucker, you are still in D.C., man.  A big week for the Bush administration...


SCARBOROUGH:  ... by the end of the week? 

CARLSON:  I have not seen this much political drama since 1998.  I didn‘t know how much I missed it.  It‘s just like news Christmas. 


CARLSON:  But we learned a lot of things about the case against Scooter Libby today. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, by the way, I am sure Scooter feels like it‘s Christmas Eve right now, buddy.

CARLSON:  The poor guy. 

I never gloat when anybody is indicted.


CARLSON:  I don‘t care if it‘s Pol Pot.  I always feel sorry for the man indicted, always and everywhere.

But, look, we know a lot about what Scooter Libby is accused of doing. 

Some of it makes sense.  Some of it doesn‘t.  Not all of this case adds up.  Some of it doesn‘t make any sense at all.  Maybe we will learn soon in the future, and we will find out what it all means.  But, at this point, we are confused.  It‘s illogical.  And we are going to explain why. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, I am always confused, but Tucker Carlson is not.  So, make sure you tune in to “THE SITUATION WITH TUCKER CARLSON.”  That starts next at 11:00. 

CARLSON:  Thanks, Joe. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Now, coming up next here, legendary ‘60s singers the Cowsills searching tonight for one of their own still missing after Katrina.  And he is just one of thousands.  We are going to talk to the sister of Barry Cowsill coming up next.



SCARBOROUGH:  Boy, I remember that song.  I also remember having a suit like that.  That‘s a happy song from a happier time. 

The Cowsill family was the real-life inspiration for the television show “The Partridge Family.”  Tonight, more than eight weeks after Hurricane Katrina ravaged our Gulf Coast, one of their own, New Orleans resident Barry Cowsill, still missing.  And Barry is just one of the thousands.

According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, there are still more than 1,500 cases of fractured families out there that have not been reunited. 

With me now from Nashville is Barry‘s sister, Susan Cowsill. 

Susan, thanks for being with us tonight.

When is the last time you heard from your brother? 

SUSAN COWSILL, SISTER OF BARRY COWSILL:  Well, he left me a message on my phone machine Wednesday—or, rather, the Thursday morning at 2:00 in the morning, after the Sunday. 

And he had left several messages, didn‘t get them until that Thursday, however, just kind of explaining what was going on.  And he was pretty—pretty worried and wanted us to come and pick him up.  I don‘t think he understood that—that we couldn‘t. 

SCARBOROUGH:  You know, it was such a—it‘s been so difficult for you to figure out where he is, and one of the reasons it‘s been difficult is, there‘s not a centralized Web site or a centralized agency or a centralized clearinghouse...

COWSILL:  That‘s right.   

SCARBOROUGH:  ... where a family member can look for one of their loved ones if they haven‘t reconnected with.

Talk about the frustration there and what the government needs to do, so you can find your brother and others can find their loved ones. 

COWSILL:  OK, well, first of all, you don‘t want to get me going on what the government should be doing.

But we will—regarding this, I have wondered myself why there isn‘t just one central location.  I mean, it seems like it would be pretty easy to organize that.  I understand there‘s a lot of missing people from other situations.  But this one, you know, if we could just get it all connected under one umbrella, I think we would have a lot more success finding these guys.

And it‘s very frustrating.  And, I mean, you almost don‘t know where to begin.  You don‘t know where to begin to look, you know?

SCARBOROUGH:  It‘s so frustrating. 

Let me ask you, there are people out there obviously watching this.  If they see your brother, how do they make contact with you?  How do they make—if they have seen your brother over the past several weeks, how do they get in touch with you? 

COWSILL:  Well, they can always go online to Cowsill.com, because there‘s a little fortress of Cowsill fans, and the family.  And we kind of all communicate through that Web site.  So, if anybody sees him, that‘s where you can go to let us know that you have. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, very good. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Thank you so much, Susan.  Greatly appreciate it. 

COWSILL:  Yes, indeed. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Best of luck to you.  And our thoughts and prayers are with you. 

And why don‘t you take us to break with a song?

COWSILL:  All right.  This is a song.  It‘s a Katrina song.  And you can hear it on bluecornmusic.com. 

(singing):  Our precious hearts are all shattered, scattered across the land.  But I know that I am going back to a place where I know who I am. 


SCARBOROUGH:  This week‘s SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY champion, Rosa Parks, once and forever, who stood up for her rights by sitting down.  What a woman.  She changed the world. 

That‘s all the time we have for tonight.  Have a great weekend. 



Copy: 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