Guests: Bill Fallon; Jake Goldenflame; Mark Larson; Stacey Honowitz; Sara Carter; Juan Hernandez; T.J. Bonner; Darby Sayward, Wendy Murphy, Yale Galanter, Bernard Kalb, Jack Myer
PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC ANCHOR, SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY: How are you doing, Rita and thank you very much. We got a lot to cover tonight folks, but I want to begin with a few thoughts on Mr. Brian Doyle. Brian Doyle is a man who is a high-ranking official at the United States Department of Homeland Security before being arrested and charged with soliciting sex with a child online. Turns out the child was an undercover detective. However, before Doyle knew that, he gave out his real name to this girl and the fact that he worked at the Homeland Security Department. He gave out his office phone number and his cell phone number. And he was busted while at home online e-mailing the person he thought was a 14-year-old girl.
Now who is the bigger fool here? Brian Doyle? The people who hired him at homeland security or the people who did the background check? Now Brian Doyle is just the face of a far larger problem. It has gotten a good deal worse with the explosion of kids using the Internet. He got caught. But as we speak, thousands of others are preying on our kids. Why aren‘t we doing more to shut these guys down?
Let‘s bring in our panel of experts. Bill Fallon is a former prosecutor and chief of the sexual assault and child abuse unit in Essex County, Massachusetts. Jake Goldenflame is a formerly active sex offender and the author of “Overcoming Sexual Terrorism,” Stacey Honowitz is a prosecutor and Mark Larson a spokesperson for protectkids.com and a radio talk show host. Bill Fallon, I want to talk to you, this guy, Doyle, if what is alleged is true about him, he not only seems like a sicko, but a sad sack and just an incredibly stupid man. How does somebody like that get to the position he‘s at? Do you run into people in this kind of position doing things like that?
BILL FALLON, FMR PROSECUTOR: Pat, I think that what this teaches us and the good teachable moment here is it doesn‘t matter who you are, where you are, what you do, this type of criminal and this type of crime lurks everywhere. As a prosecutor, we used to love people to look like as I would say, the hunchback of Notre Dame, looking at them going, who would go near them. Guess what? Eighty percent of the people don‘t. As a prosecutor, you want that 20 percent. These are the people who live these quiet lives, private lives of quiet desperation as the expression goes.
What we learned from this case is the perpetrators are now no different than the victims in the sense that victims have told us for years when the Internet came on, they felt the sense of intimacy. They would get caught up in it. They would give revealing information. We teach our kids not do that. It shows that this goes both ways, that this guy, for whatever reason felt he had this intimate personal relationship, not that he just wanted a sexual relationship, but he‘s giving information that you‘d say, if you were looking at, what are you, mental? Is insanity your defense? But no, I think they lose such control, they have such a sense of invincibility and they have become part of a sexual union that hasn‘t even existed yet. They loose all sense of reality not to be an insanity defense and the outrage is not that we‘ve caught this guy, because we‘re lucky with him. It‘s the thousands and I would say the tens of thousand that we don‘t get.
BUCHANAN: Let me ask Jake Goldenflame. You‘re a former offender in this area.
JAKE GOLDENFLAME, FORMERLY ACTIVE SEX OFFENDER: Yes.
BUCHANAN: Let me ask you—this guy, apparently this detective, this female detective—they must have others working here, they‘re trying to catch people like this. And they get online and they make something of an allure to some of these people. Is this something that is extremely difficult for these guys to resist sitting there in the quiet of their den, surfing that Internet when they come across something like this?
GOLDENFLAME: Not at all. These guys are driven by a compulsion that is aptly so strong that it erases their normal good sense and they begin doing reckless, self-destructive things by going on the Internet, looking for that kind of victim. They‘re not insane in the sense that they certainly know what they‘re doing and they know that it‘s wrong. But at the same time, they‘re oftentimes helpless to stop it because the compulsion is that strong until you go into treatment and get help to correct it.
BUCHANAN: All right. Let me talk to - raise that question with Stacy Honowitz. If this guy, look, we don‘t know for sure - let‘s say alleged that he‘s guilty, we don‘t know for sure, but if he‘s got this kind of compulsion -- and as Mr. as Jake Goldenflame says, if he‘s got this kind of compulsion and he‘s going into the Internet and you‘ve got these detectives who are putting this stuff out trolling. It‘s sort of like putting whisky in the coffee of an alcoholic, is it not? Is there any kind of defense you can see for this guy of some kind of—you know he was drawn into this thing?
STACEY HONOWITZ, PROSECUTOR: You know what Pat, everybody thinks that because the undercover detectives are posing as 13 and 14-year-old girls or boys, that there‘s an entrapment defense. He was predisposed to commit this. Entrapment is a very difficult defense to overcome. At this case, this is what we need. There are so many thousands of pedophiles, these Internet chat rooms are havens. They‘re sitting ducks, these victims sitting in there. So we need these undercover police officers to go and pose as 13 and 14-year-olds in order for us to make any kind of leeway in capturing these pedophiles.
BUCHANAN: Let me go to Mark Larson on that because that‘s right down his alley. You‘re at protectkids.com. What does it mean - what do you think how this modus operandi was done. And this Internet - this really is, it‘s like a big pool of fish for these predators, isn‘t it?
MARK LARSON, PROTECTKIDS.COM: Sure it is and this is not a big surprise to enough is enough. Donna Rice Hughes (ph), I know you‘ve talked to her, our president for a long time, protectkids.com this. This is beyond the entrapment issue here Pat. It‘s about what‘s going on at any given moment on the Internet, 50,000 plus predators, certainly viewers of MSNBC know that with some of these dateline reports. What I hear on my radio talk show on KOGO in San Diego is people saying when they see those reports, wow, these people again look like just the guy down the street. How can it be? Well, it can be because you talk about the culture of corruption in Washington, this is a culture of corrosion. It‘s a corrosion of society.
BUCHANAN: Mark, let me interrupt you there. We want to show our viewers how easy it is for some of these sexual predators to get in contact with kids. Let‘s take you into our control room where it took just three clicks of one of our staffers to get onto a teen website loaded with chat rooms. The chat rooms have titles like have fun and relax in the hot tub, teenager who is prefer mature conversation. There‘s even one entitled, flirt with teens 24 hours a day, which right now has over 200 users participating. And Mark, there are literally thousands of these chat rooms on the Internet, correct?
LARSON: It‘s easy for people to think it‘s all about chat rooms, Pat. I mean myspace.com, zenga (ph), (INAUDIBLE) all these out there, a lot of peer pressure for kids who shouldn‘t be in these neighborhoods to get into this. Myspace for example has the level of 14 as the entry level. You get kids that are 10, 11, some of my nieces were on this under aged. It‘s not being policed. Parents don‘t have a clue. Parents do not need to know how to build a computer to know about this. We have on our protectkids.com website, rules and tools for kids to use, for parents to use as well. It‘s pervasive. It‘s easy to get hung up in this Doyle story and say well, there‘s a guy - and get into the entrapment story. This is a picture of what‘s going on as a dirty little quiet secret across America. And the wakeup call in this story and others including the story on Capitol Hill yesterday is parents, you got to know what‘s going on with our kids. All is not lost but it‘s accelerating.
BUCHANAN: Let me bring Bill Fallon back into this. Has this really magnified as well as complicated the problems you‘ve got?
FALLON: Well, I think, for me, Pat, it complicates, particularly when people say, oh, someone is entrapped. Obviously we‘re presuming these people didn‘t entrap them. We‘re presuming they gave enough information they‘ve got someone here. The little girl that pretended to be 14-year old, didn‘t say I want sex with you, so and so, come to me. But I will tell you, the issue is not just what‘s said, not what happens with this case, but all of the kids out there who never report anything, all the pedophiles who actually meet up with these kids. That‘s where we have to hone in on this.
I look at the really abject, how craziness of we can‘t get pornography, child pornography off the Internet. We have the Internet provider saying, I‘m not giving over names so we can look at this. That‘s the beginning of it, because quite frankly, these guys who are, if you will, getting excited by looking at the child porn, this is that next step. They said now I can really get a kid. Before I used to just dream about it. Maybe I can get one magazine. And then you get the kids giving as much information, setting the meet up and it‘s real. When the meeting is real, this is great, this one case. But what this highlights is what the kid in Washington said yesterday and what I think goes along with, nobody says, how many kids out there. And it‘s not just one or two. I‘m telling you, it‘s thousands and thousands. How do we stop it? We don‘t have the right criminal penalties and I don‘t think we have the right criminal mind to protect kids. We‘re so busy about first amendment rights. We really don‘t think about protection of the kids. There has to be a balance and I think we have to wake up or we‘re going to have more kids abused.
BUCHANAN: All right, let me ask Stacey Honowitz, what do you think? How do you deal with this stuff because it looks to me like there‘s just this enormous potentiality and the law enforcement and other resources simply can‘t deal with the huge universe of communication that‘s going on.
HONOWITZ: Well, I agree with everything that Bill said. I mean first of all, we‘re not regulating everything on the Internet. The computer people don‘t want to take any kind of action and they rest it on law enforcement and that‘s why as I said earlier, we need law enforcement to continue to go on the Internet. But the most important thing—I gave a lecture last Friday to have 700 students about these Internet chat rooms and these pedophiles that go on there. And quite frankly, Pat, they don‘t care. They‘re more interested in being on that Internet and meeting people and parents are fully unaware of what‘s going on. It‘s behind closed doors. Kids go upstairs. They say they‘re going online and parents let them go online. Listen, it‘s the information highway, that‘s what it was supposed to be. It wasn‘t supposed to be a haven for pedophiles but it has become that. And law enforcement and stiffer penalties, all of these things together is what‘s going to maybe put some kind of dent in what‘s going on every single day.
BUCHANAN: Jake, let me ask you as someone who‘s cured of this thing and been out of this - this situation for 20 years or so. Do you think the Internet has really added to the potentiality of the potential predator?
GOLDENFLAME: Yes because it fosters the illusion that you can anonymously go and do things that you could do if you thought other people were able to know that you were doing it. That‘s the danger. You remember, Madison said if men were angels, governments wouldn‘t be necessary. With the Internet, there‘s the illusion that there‘s no government. So people are going on and doing things that might not do—might not be tempted to see about trafficking with a 14-year-old girl, for example, if they thought that everybody in the community knew that they were trying to do so. I‘m not saying that all of them are that innocent. But some of them very well may be people who, while they‘ve had these thoughts before, they have never acted on them and they are (INAUDIBLE) themselves.
BUCHANAN: Let me ask, Mark, Mark, a quick question. Give me one thing you think that the government could do with regard to the Internet that would be legit, wouldn‘t cross the line, the first amendment which could cut down on this or cause folks to apprehend more of these characters and serve as some kind of deterrent.
LARSON: Well, in force (ph), existing laws, that‘s part one of a one part question here. Part one B is that they have got to be involved in the process like they‘re doing with Yahoo! Google is fighting it, but at least cooperate when the government tries to find out how easy is it for kids. Let‘s do a study, see how easy it is for kids to wander into the pornographic parts of the websites, part of the Internet. Too much fighting going on. Enforce the existing laws, have parental involvement, get the industry involved with some self-policing, like age verification. At the same time when you do that, get parents involved. The parental involvement is the key here right now.
BUCHANAN: All right. Well, you know, this is one of those situations where they stop one character. We don‘t know what he did before if he did anything. But we stop one character and you‘re getting folks talking about a very, very serious problem. So we appreciate it very much.
BUCHANAN: Sure, go ahead.
LARSON: I was going to say, there‘s one more thing here and that is the innocence—the loss of innocence with these kids. And how are kids conditioned to where they start thinking it‘s OK to participate with a predator online. We‘re sending them mixed messages in a sex saturated society.
BUCHANAN: Ok. Bill Fallon, Jake Goldenflame, Stacey Honowitz, Mark Larson, thanks very much.
Coming up on “Scarborough Country,” dramatic new developments in the rape investigation at Duke University. Tonight, a student is suspended. The head lacrosse coach has resigned. The team‘s season has been canceled.
You‘ll see the bombshell that put this case right back into the headlines.
First, the Mexican border war heats up as members of Congress try and make a last minute deal on an immigration bill before the Easter recess. Pressure‘s on? Can a deal be cut in time? You‘re watching “Scarborough Country.”
BUCHANAN: Immigration battle rages on in the nation‘s capital today. As senators took up the border patrol battle for a second week, trying to hammer out a compromise to solve the nation‘s immigration crisis. The debate in Congress is happening while protests and rallies are taking place all across the country aimed at keeping the heat on legislators. Joining me now is Sara Carter. She‘s a reporter from the “Inland Valley Daily Bulletin,” Juan Hernandez, former advisor to Mexican President Vicente Fox. He‘s author of the new book, “New American Pioneers” and TJ Bonner, with the National Border Patrol Council. Sara, let‘s go to you first. Give us an update on where things stand in Washington in your judgment over this immigration bill. Are we looking at a deadlock? Are we looking at a bill maybe very quickly this week? Are we looking at a bill at all?
SARA CARTER, INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN: Well, it looks like there may be a deadlock. I don‘t think that the Republicans are going move on this. They‘re not going to accept the Kennedy-McCain bill the way it stands right now. And obviously the Democrats aren‘t willing to compromise on any of the amendments brought forth by the Republican Party. It doesn‘t look like it‘s going to happen by Friday. But we could be surprised. I mean something could happen. I know Frist wants to see it happen by Friday. I know the president is urging it to happen by Friday. But at this point in time, no one is really certain. And talk in Washington is that it‘s going deadlock.
BUCHANAN: Juan Hernandez, you‘ve been looking at this closely as well. I think you‘re behind the McCain-Kennedy bill. I heard McCain or I believe I read him saying on the Internet that they don‘t have the votes really to break a filibuster on amnesty, guest worker program. Do you think this thing is going to deadlock or do you think it‘s going go through?
JUAN HERNANDEZ, FORMER ADVISOR TO VICENTE FOX: Well, Pat, today as you probably know is the day of prayer and fasting with regard to passing some type of immigration bill that will dignify immigrants, both the Catholics and Protestants right in Washington. As you know, there was a press conference and all over this nation, including myself, we have been fasting and praying that a miracle will happen. It‘s a miracle that we have got then far. So we‘re hoping and praying that tomorrow we will have good news for the 12 million undocumented in this nation.
BUCHANAN: TJ Bonner, if the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill gets through, what will that do to the morale of the border patrol who‘ve been trying to stop these folks, 12 million at risk of their own lives, Twelve million have gotten through. And the McCain-Kennedy-Bush bill gets through and they‘re all given basically blanket amnesty and put on a slow road to citizenship. What will that do to the morale of the border patrol?
TJ BONNER, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL: It will lower it even more than it is now Pat and it‘s lowest than I‘ve ever seen it in my 28 years as a border patrol agent. If amnesty is the answer, I would sure like to know what the question is. Because the question can‘t be how do we secure our borders or how do we stop illegal immigration? We tried this back in 1986. Since that time, a 500 percent increase—
HERNANDEZ: I‘m sorry. I‘m at the border and I‘m not hearing that from border patrolmen, my friend. On the contrary - (INAUDIBLE) I don‘t mean to interrupt here, but border patrolmen are telling me that they‘re stuck like the rest of this nation, most of this nation from 56 to 76 percent according to the polls of this week saying let‘s legalize the undocumented.
BUCHANAN: Mr. Hernandez—
CARTER: Mr. Hernandez.
BUCHANAN: Mr. Hernandez, let‘s (INAUDIBLE) Sara Carter for a second.
Let‘s listen to Sara Carter.
HERNANDEZ: I‘d love to listen to Sara.
CARTER: Mr. Hernandez, Mr. Hernandez, that‘s very surprising because I too, am on the phone and out on the lines with border patrol agents and law enforcement officials consistently. And I have never once heard that border patrol agents are frustrated. They‘re angry about this guest worker program.
HERNANDEZ: I‘m here right now in Laredo, Texas and I‘ve spoken to border patrol.
CARTER: They‘re worried about their own safety. (INAUDIBLE)
BUCHANAN: Juan Hernandez, Juan, I want to give you some numbers. You saw the poll this week, the poll that came out and reported that a number of people would go along with a certain measure to legalize --
HERNANDEZ: The majority.
BUCHANAN: It said 90 percent of the American people said illegal immigration was a serious, a very serious, or a gravely serious problem in this country.
HERNANDEZ: It is a serious problem.
BUCHANAN: Do you not believe the American government has a right to secure our borders?
HERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. The system is broken and we must fix it. And we must push Congress throughout this nation -- 42 million Hispanics have decided not to stay at home anymore, but to march until this wonderful nation, we love you but you must dignify our family members who are good to this nation. They‘re already good citizens. Let‘s not criminalize them.
CARTER: But Mr. Hernandez, what happens 20 years from now? What happens 20 years from now when we have more illegal immigrants coming into the United States?
BUCHANAN: Let me put a question to you, hold it Mr. Hernandez. Let me put a question to you Sara. If the border—let‘s assume we don‘t get—either get no bill or we get an amnesty guest worker bill and you don‘t get a security fence on the border and you don‘t get the tough sanctions on businesses that a lot of folks want, what happens down on that border in the next 20 years?
CARTER: There‘s a breakdown on that border and it‘s going to get worse and worse and corruption‘s going to spill more and more inside the United States. If something doesn‘t happen now, there are going to be serious issues to deal with in the next 20 years. Look people aren‘t just coming from Mexico across the border.
HERNANDEZ: Let‘s fix it. Let‘s fix it. Let‘s create a program that‘s good for the United States.
BUCHANAN: PL. we want to bring in TJ, go ahead, TJ.
HERNANDEZ: I‘m excited.
BONNER: Trying to confuse illegal immigration with legal immigration.
BONNER: Legal immigration is the life blood of this nation. But we are a nation of laws first and foremost. And if we just allow anyone who wants to come across that border to get in line in front of those who are patiently waiting—
BUCHANAN: Hold it, Juan, I want to get TJ, I want to ask you, you represent the border patrol. If you ask those guys or if you said, look, if we give you guys a 2000-mile fence on the border to secure the border, we‘ll deal with the problem of who‘s coming in already later, but if we give you a 2,000 mile fence along that border, how many border patrol would it take to secure it and how many without a fence?
BONNER: In both cases, Pat, if you don‘t crack down on the employers, you are not going to be able to see a lockdown (ph) border because the reason that 98 percent of these people are coming across is looking for jobs. That also solves the problem of the 12 to 20 million people who are in this country illegally right now. If there‘s no work here, they go home. They may not be thrilled about going home to jobs that pay less than they can earn here in the United States. But they will go home on their own.
HERNANDEZ: Sure, of course they will. Let‘s create a program that is good for this nation of the United States. As the Judiciary Committee said, let‘s create a problem which we do legalize the 12 million and then bring in 400,000 a year. That‘s about the amount that we truly need in this nation.
BUCHANAN: Let‘s ask you, Sara Carter. What is wrong with Juan Hernandez saying let‘s just legalize the 12 million that came in illegally and then let‘s start bringing in 400,000 more a year. Would that solve the problem?
CARTER: Well no. The back door to legal immigration is still wide open.
BUCHANAN: Go ahead Sara.
CARTER: Mr. Hernandez, one moment. The back door to illegal immigration is still wide open. Nobody‘s been able to answer the question as to why this guest worker program is going to work the way that it is.
In no way is it going to shut the door to illegal immigration. And further
BUCHANAN: Sara, what you‘re saying -- what you‘re saying is look, if you legalize, give amnesty to 12 million, you bring in 400,00 more legals, you will still get the million and a half illegals who are trying to break in on the southern border unless you secure it. Right?
CARTER: Exactly. Yes, exactly, because who‘s to say that employers are going to hire specifically from the guest worker program if they can still hire people illegally to do the job cheaper, not pay the taxes, not pay the workers.
BONNER: Let me agree with Sara. Can I agree with Sara?
BUCHANAN: And when you do, (INAUDIBLE) would you also tell us what‘s going to happen May 1.
HERNANDEZ: OK, I‘ll be glad to. First of all, Sara, if we create a program—I would agree with the border patrolman just a minute ago. If we create a program that‘s fair to this nation, that only brings in the amount that we need, then others will not come if there are no jobs. We can crack down on the employers once we‘ve created a program. Now, you‘re right. May 1, many organizations in the United States, Hispanic organizations are calling for all Hispanics—the 42 million Hispanics, to not go to work on the first of May, to not spend a penny on that day. There are those who believe that it should also be another day of prayer and fasting. But the most important message would be to Congress, you have in your hands the opportunity to solve this problem. Reagan had amnesty in 1986 and ‘87 but he did not create a new program. That‘s why we‘re in the mess that we are today.
BUCHANAN: OK. We got to say right here, thank you very much, sir. Carter, Juan Hernandez, TJ Bonner, appreciate you all coming. We‘ll be talking to you again I‘m sure Juan, Sara, TJ. When “Scarborough Country” continues, the coach quits, season‘s over and now a shocking e-mail about an alleged threat to kill. Live report from Duke University on the rape investigation that‘s taken a new twist.
Coming up, she‘s been part of our morning routine for 15 years. Now, “NBC Today” host Katie Couric is leaving to fill the chair occupied for 40 years by Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather and Bob Schieffer. Is this a good move?
PAT BUCHANAN, HOST: Some scandal continues to grow on Duke University campus as the lacrosse coach steps down and the rest of the men‘s season gets scrapped. A live report just ahead.
First, here‘s the latest news from MSNBC World headquarters.
COLETTE CASSIDY, MSNBC NEWS ANCHOR: Good evening, everyone. I‘m Colette Cassidy. Here‘s what‘s happening.
The judge in the sentencing trail of confessed al-Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui ruled prosecutors can play the cockpit voice recordings from United Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11. Those recordings have never been heard publicly. The jury begins hearing testimony tomorrow to determine whether Moussaoui should be executed.
A grand jury in Washington begins hearing testimony tomorrow on allegations against Georgia democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. She refused a Capitol police officer‘s order to stop at a security checkpoint last week. Then allegedly hit him when he tried to grab her.
And a split verdict in New Jersey today involving two former Vioxx users who suffered heart attacks. The jury found drug maker Merck was not liable for one heart attack, but was liable for the other, and awarded that man $4.5 million in compensatory damages. The punitive damages are still to be determined, as this was the first case involving plaintiff‘s who used the now withdraw painkiller for 18 months or more. Previously, Merck won two Vioxx trials and lost one.
Those are your headlines. I‘m Colette Cassidy. Now back to “Scarborough Country.”
BUCHANAN: She‘s been waking up millions for 15 years. And now NBC‘s Katie Couric is packing up and leaving the “Today” show for the anchor chair at CBS evening news. Is America ready for a female solo anchor? We‘re going to debate that very question a little later.
And U.S. Air Force video of a U.S. Predator attack hell fire missile striking insurgents just as they plant an improvised explosive device.
Welcome back to “Scarborough Country.” I‘m Pat Buchanan, in for Joe tonight. Those stories in just minutes.
But first, there‘s shocking new developments today at Duke University. The lacrosse coach resigned amid allegations members of his team gang raped an exotic dancer. And the school‘s president cancels the team‘s season.
But first, a look at the evidence, including an e-mail allegedly written by one member of the lacrosse team.
Joining me now from Durham, North Carolina, NBC‘s Michelle Hofland.
MICHELLE HOFLAND, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Pat. A lot going on here at Duke University tonight and also downtown in Durham.
But first of all, tonight, previously sealed court documents, they have now been released. This is some of the 60 pages in those court documents. But the page that everyone is looking at is this one. This is allegedly an e-mail, according to the police, written by one of the lacrosse players.
And let me read it to you. It says, quote, “I decided to have some stripers over, however, there will be no nudity. I plan on killing the b‘s as soon as they walk in and proceeding to cut their skin off.”
The attorney for that student wrote this written statement. He said, quote, “While the statement of the e-mail is vile, the e-mail is perfectly consistent with the boys‘ unequivocal assertion that no sexual assault took place that evening.”
The delivery stamp on the e-mail is 1:58 a.m., shortly after the party, which is further evidence of a lack of a guilty mind.
Also, Pat, this evening, inside some of these stacks of documents here from the courthouse includes a list of things seized from that students‘ dorm when they search the dorm. And it includes things like computers, and pictures, and drawings, and things like that.
But what‘s interesting is that it included in that list a disposable camera. Our sources tell us that a disposable camera taken there and that a number of other students, lacrosse players, took pictures and photographs at the party that night.
And our sources tell us that those photographs and the pictures show the alleged victim unable to stand up. So much so, according to my sources, that they had to allegedly carry her out to the car that night when she left the party.
We understand that most of those pictures and also videotapes, right now, are in the hands of the Durham Police Department.
Also tonight, the president here at Duke University is calling that e-mail, quote, “sickening and repulsive.” And the student, who allegedly wrote that e-mail, he‘s a sophomore here at Duke University, he has been suspended indefinitely.
Also, the president of Duke University, tonight, has canceled the rest of the season for the men‘s lacrosse team.
Also, tonight, one more casualty in all of this—the Duke lacrosse coach. He has quit amid all of this scandal here. Pat—
BUCHANAN: Michelle, let me ask you, what is the status of the DNA evidence, if any?
HOFLAND: Well, that‘s the big question out here tonight. That‘s what everyone wants to know. What my sources tell me is that the first round of DNA testing is done. And they‘re waiting to try to match up—they took DNA samples from 46 lacrosse players. So they‘re trying to see if any of their DNA matches up with the alleged victim‘s DNA.
When that is expected in, that‘s anyone‘s guest. It could be perhaps tomorrow, maybe next week, but everyone is here is waiting.
The defense attorneys tell us that they are very anxious for those test results to come in. Because they are confident that those test results will prove that their lacrosse players had absolutely nothing to do with this and that they did not sexually assault this woman, who but at their party about three and a half weeks ago.
BUCHANAN: Michelle, thank you very much. We appreciate it. We appreciate your being on the job there, live, there, at Duke tonight.
Now to talk about these new developments, Sayward Darby, editor and chief of “The Chronicle,” which is Duke University‘s newspaper; former prosecutor Wendy Murphy; and criminal defense attorney, Yale Galanter.
Let me talk to you, Sayward Darby. What is the mood and the attitude down there on the university campus. Is this turned into a town versus gown thing, if you will? You know, rich privileged Duke kids, white kids, and a community that feels that they‘re getting away with this?
SAYWARD DARBY, EDITOR AND CHIEF, DUKE UNIVERSITY‘S “THE CHRONICLE”:
Sure. Well, first of all, my name is Sayward.
DARBY: I just want to put that out there. Sorry.
BUCHANAN: Sayward, right.
DARBY: In terms of the town-gown relation aspect of this, Duke has a very unique place in Durham. It‘s the city‘s biggest employer. It provides a lot of community service for the city.
But at the same time, there has been a long history of tensions in some neighbors between students and neighbors. And this is painted somewhat as something that is straining town-gown relations that could have long-term ramifications on town-gown relations.
Some people are saying it could be extremely negative. Some people are saying it could be positive. This could be the chance for dialogue and improvement in relations.
BUCHANAN: All right. Let me bring you in, Wendy Murphy, about this. Now, look, that was a crude, lewd, ugly e-mail. And the kid apparently sent this, the sophomore, sent this one-hour after this episode occurs.
That does not read like the e-mails—I mean, it looks to me ridiculous. The guy says he‘s going skin people. Somebody doesn‘t send a stupid e-mail like that one-hour after they‘ve committed a crime for which they could go to prison for 20 years. What‘s your take on it?
WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: I‘m not sure there‘s a standard by which we can judge such things. Anyone who would gang rape a woman and anally, vaginally, orally—what kind of e-mail are they supposed to write?
I mean, I think it‘s completely consistent with someone who sees women as objects, that they would degrade a woman, rape her, strangle her, beat her senseless. Why wouldn‘t they, then, write an e-mail saying, “And, oh, by the way, the next time I do this, I think I‘ll just cut right to the chase and kill her outright.”
I think it shows a state of mind of utter disrespect for that woman in particular, for women in general. I don‘t think it‘s inconsistent at all.
BUCHANAN: Well, there‘s no doubt—Well, no, I agree with you about the disrespect and the disgust and everything like that. But people who are guilty of rape, at least an hour later, they would be thinking, look, I could be going to jail. They‘re not...
MURPHY: No. No, they‘re thinking I was entitled to do this. I‘m a member of a wealthy white boy‘s school in a community that allow me to do what I want when I want. They‘ve gotten away with a lot for a very long time. Why not go home and celebrate?
BUCHANAN: All right.
MURPHY: You don‘t think you‘re going get in trouble. If she does go to police, who‘s going believe her? She‘s a black stripper. That‘s what they‘re thinking. That‘s what that e-mail reflects?
BUCHANAN: Do you agree with that, Yale Galanter?
YALE GALANTER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No, not at all. First of all, the e-mail tag is from the author. It‘s signed by the maker of the e-mail.
The e-mail discusses who else is already invited, who else is going to be present. He jokes about doing it in his Duke spandex. There isn‘t a single word of the e-mail about the rape that had just occurred an hour before.
And, Pat, you‘re 100 percent right. This is like a bulletin to the world of what he‘s going do?
Look, the e-mail is vile. And what‘s contained in the e-mail is absolutely horrible. The language is horrible. But in terms of evidentiary value, anything that would tend to prove or disprove whether or not these boys were involve in the rape, this e-mail doesn‘t do it.
This e-mail looks like a joke or a hoax than anything else.
GALANTER: Pat, I mean Wendy and I have been doing this for years.
And nobody telegraphs that they‘re going to murder somebody.
MURPHY: Yale is a very good lawyer. But there‘s spin and then there‘s ridiculous spin.
You can try all night long to say, “Oh, the e-mail doesn‘t confess to rape.” That‘s not the point. The e-mail shows that these guys were of the mind that whatever had happened to this woman was just another day at the beach. They‘ll rape her, sodomize her and tomorrow they‘ll kill her.
BUCHANAN: I know. Let me disagree with you. He‘s not going—people don‘t write e-mails about...
GALANTER: That‘s how any prosecutor would look at it.
GALANTER: This e-mail has no evidentiary at all.
MURPHY: And where is that playbook on how you write an e-mail after you gang rape a woman?
BUCHANAN: Do you seriously think, I don‘t care how stupid, racist, ugly, dumb it is, he‘s going to bring a knife and skin somebody?
MURPHY: It‘s not that he was planning to skin someone. It‘s the state of mind, that he felt so celebratory about what he had just done, he‘s going have another party tomorrow.
BUCHANAN: Well, that‘s the point. This is my point. He‘s acting celebratory and stupid. And if you‘re guilty of some horrendous crime, as these guys were, a lot of these guys—I can‘t see anybody talking like that, aside more in common?
MURPHY: If you think you were entitled to do it, you would get way with it, you would have a celebratory state of mind.
GALANTER: Wendy, the e-mail is to Whom it May Concern. It‘s like an invitation to a party.
MURPHY: And it‘s a very common mindset among the white athletes across the country in universities, just like this one.
BUCHANAN: Sayward? Sayward, let me ask you, what is the feeling there about the e-mail? Do they think this clearly shows that this sophomore, who‘s apparently been suspended, that he was clearly guilty of some frankly first degree rape for which he could probably get 25 years in jail?
DARBY: Everybody I talk to agrees that the e-mail is horrible, that the language in the e-mail is inexcusable. It‘s vile. It‘s repulsive. It‘s disgusting. However, there is a division in opinion on what that means.
Both of your guests have actually hit the nail on the head. People have said, this indicates that is there was no rape. That there may have been some sort of altercation between the team and the exotic dancer, some sort of argument. But it indicates that is there was no assault.
Other people are saying that the language indicate that members of this team may have been capable of gang rape. That the aggressiveness of the language indicates that.
BUCHANAN: OK. You know, I would like to continue—I‘d like to continue this...
MURPHY: She had a torn genital area. She had injuries to her genitals. Who cares what the e-mail says?
GALANTER: Wendy, her boyfriend brought her to the hospital. She wasn‘t brought by law enforcement.
MURPHY: Oh, she caused her own vaginal injuries, Yale?
GALANTER: No, she didn‘t cause her own vaginal injuries.
MURPHY: Oh, good.
GALANTER: But maybe she had sex with her boyfriend before she got the right... (ph)
BUCHANAN: We got to go. We got to go. Look, but I‘m sure this story is...
MURPHY: That‘s rich.
BUCHANAN: ...this story‘s going to continue.
Thank you. Sayward Darby, Wendy Murphy and Yale Galanter.
GALANTER: Thank you, Pat.
BUCHANAN: I‘m joined now by Tucker Carlson who will be taking this up in “The Situation.”
Tucker, what‘s “The Situation” tonight?
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST, “THE SITUATION”: I don‘t know, Pat. You tell me. What did you do to Wendy Murphy?
She‘s a little wound up.
BUCHANAN: But look, you tell me—Tucker, I look at that as a stupid sophomore jerk crude thing, but somebody following a crime of this viciousness, I can‘t see him whipping off e-mails and joking around? Come on.
CARLSON: I don‘t know what to think. All I know is Wendy Murphy really intimidates me. I have to say.
Speaking of intimidation, tonight...
BUCHANAN: Tucker, OK, Tucker.
CARLSON: Mrs. Clinton—Hillary Clinton says the new immigration bill pending before Congress could make a criminal out of her—we can only hope.
Plus, the state of Massachusetts says buy health insurance or we‘re going to punish you. Stay healthy or we‘ll hurt you, in other words. Perverse.
All tonight. Thanks, Pat.
BUCHANAN: OK, thanks, Tucker.
Folks, be sure to tune into “The Situation” next at 11:00, right after “Scarborough” and company.
A tearful farewell, tonight, to the “Today” show. Katie Couric says good-bye to millions and millions of viewers as she makes her way over to the CBS news anchor desk. What does it mean for CBS? Or NBC? Or network news?
We‘ll talk about getting boxed in another day. Another car chase in California. Where else? But this one ends in dramatic fashion. We‘ll have the must-see pictures coming up.
BUCHANAN: Today marks the end of an era in the TV news industry. Longtime NBC “Today” anchor, Katie Couric, announced that she is leaving the network she called home for more than 15 years.
Katie Couric made the announcement this morning on the “Today” show.
Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KATIE COURIC, HOST, “TODAY” SHOW: I wanted to tell all of you out there who have watched the show for the last 15 years, that after listening to my heart and my gut, two thing that is served me well in the past, I decided I‘ll be leaving “Today” at the end of May.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BUCHANAN: OK. So is Katie Couric evening news anchor material?
Joining me now, CBS news veteran and foreign correspondent, Bernard Kalb. And also Jack Myers. He‘s the editor of mediavillage.com.
Let‘s take a look at—before we take a look at that poll, let me ask you, Bernard Kalb, smart move?
BERNARD KALB, CBS NEWS VETERAN CORRESPONDENT: I see it, Pat, as a clash of journalistic civilizations. I had the feeling of a jarring juxtaposition of Edward R. Murrow, whose face is now seen in the movie coast-to-coast, in the movie “Good Night and Good Luck,” and Katie Couric.
Someone—Katie Couric being identified as an interviewer of celebrities and not at all in the real journalistic sense familiar with turmoil of the world. Journalistic clash of civilizations.
BUCHANAN: Well, let me ask you this. You‘ve got Cronkite, there, even those that are on the other side of the fence, and Rather, most of them are journalists of long standing, they have 40 years in anchor chairs. They‘ve put in their tours of duty. And Cronkite, I think, was dropped behind lines in Normandy and Rather did all of his time in the White House, Vietnam and the rest of it.
And what does it do to the—what‘s it going to do to all of the correspondents, who have been coming up through ranks and getting the hash marks on their sleeves, when the quarterback is Katie Couric?
KALB: It‘s going to do wonders for morale. Couric‘s going to do wonders for morale at CBS. Even apart from the necessity, you might think of people being graduated up to the top spot.
KALB: That job at CBS news—and I worked there for many years as the CBS news correspondent.
KALB: That job requires a kind of a first name basis with the problems of the world. You have to have established footwork in these various countries. You‘ve got know—it‘s a sense of intimacy with the crises that are taking place.
Katie Couric may be marvelous and, indeed is, at the job she now has. But I see that chair being occupied by someone who has the sense of journalistic confidence and certainty about what‘s happening in the world. This is quite different from the job that she does.
BUCHANAN: Jack Myers, do you disagree? You think it‘s a smart move that draws a big player out of NBC?
JACK MYERS, EDITOR, MEDIAVILLAGE.COM: I think it is a smart move.
BUCHANAN: It takes the star of NBC over to CBS. It causes a buzz. It‘s going to be dramatic ratings for the early period. She‘s got a golden opportunity, right?
MYERS: All of the above. And I think the only ones concerned about her journalistic credentials are the journalists themselves.
I think it does do wonders for the morale at CBS because it shows that CBS CEO Les Moonves is making a tremendous commitment to building the CBS group, bringing in the talent.
And remember, we‘re in an age where Jon Stewart just won the Emmy two years in a row for Best Newscast on the “Daily Show” at Comedy Central, where people are turning to blogs and chat rooms and discussion groups.
BUCHANAN: Jack, are you saying that the era that Bernie is talking about, and the era I grew up with, which is the news anchor, the people who are veterans, who bring all of this experience, and knowledge, and background in heavy news, whether it‘s national, international, wars, and things like that, good-bye to all of that?
MYERS: No, not good-bye to all of that. They‘ll still be there.
They‘ll still be there and Katie will turn to them for the news.
But it‘s not just how Katie—what her journalistic credentials are, but how they package the news around her. Remember, when she came to the “Today” show, they moved the studio to ground floor. They moved outside. They changed the concept of the “Today” show.
BUCHANAN: All right.
KALB: No. Jack?
BUCHANAN: All right, hold it a second, Bernie. We‘re going to take a quick break now. Stay with me; more in a moment.
We‘re going to ask the situation of will the public go along with Katie Couric as anchor of CBS news?
BUCHANAN: Long time NBC anchor Katie Couric announced today she‘s leaving the network. She‘ll take over the CBS Evening News chair starting in September.
I want to bring back in former CBS news correspondent Bernard Kalb and Jack Myers, editor of mediavillage.com.
Bernard, I have to say that, you know, I come from a different area of journalism and politics, journalism, everything. But I do think that—I think this might work—this might work.
But I do think this. It‘s a real test of whether the American people
that‘s what they want in their kind of news? I mean, will they?
KALB: But you don‘t know that‘s what they want.
BUCHANAN: No, I don‘t it. But I think it‘s a...
KALB: But the fact is anybody—this thing is so transparently the pursuit to grab for ratings. Katie Couric gets good ratings on the “Today” show in the morning. And the question is can you take that morning personality, even apart from heavy journalistic credentials—can you take that, the morning landscape—and move it into the evening landscape?
BUCHANAN: The light morning news and the soft interviews?
KALB: I think it‘s quite different. And I do think that there is an inner—almost a viscerally that when you look at the evening anchor, you want someone who has great journalistic confidence, who‘s been exposed to the crises in the world, who knows the world. That‘s quite different.
BUCHANAN: All right.
Jack, isn‘t that a point? That there is a difference? I mean, frankly when you go on the “Today” show, the morning shows, you‘re much softer in things than you are—and people, I think, want that in the morning. Then when you sit down there, you are waiting for Edward R.
Morrow or Cronkite to tell you what has happened in the world, and here
comes the girl next door who‘s very perky
MYERS: Well, first of all, Pat, what‘s wrong with ratings, if Katie Couric brings more people to the news, then I think that‘s a good thing. In terms of what people are looking for, I think it‘s maybe men 50 years plus who are looking for Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite.
BUCHANAN: Bernard, we can add a couple there.
BUCHANAN: OK, thank you, Bernard Kalb and Jack Myers.
We‘ll be right back.
BUCHANAN: That‘s all the time we have tonight. I‘m Pat Buchanan, in for Joe. We ran out of time. Sorry about missing that hell fire missile and that car chase. They were great stuff. It‘s my fault.
“The Situation with Tucker Carlson” starts right now.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
Copy: Content and programming copyright 2006 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2006 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.