IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

'The Situation with Tucker Carlson' for April 27

Read the transcript to the Thursday show

Guests: Eric Cantor, Jimmy Martinez, Jimmy Flores, Butch Wagner, Max Kellerman

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Thanks, Rita.  That‘s fully me.

Thanks to you at home, too, for tuning in.  Good to have you with us.

Tonight, shocking new information about the accuser in the Duke investigation.  Reports of a previous rape complaint filed by the 27-year-old stripper have come to light tonight.  In that complaint, she claimed to police she was sexually assaulted by yet another group of three men.  We‘ll have the latest on this developing story.

Also ahead, talk about a bad day at the office.  A woman says she was humiliated at work and sues for $1.2 million.  You won‘t believe what she says happened to her at work.

And what does Snoop Dogg and Bjork have in common?  Apart from unusual names, they both have been caught behaving badly in public.  Very badly.  And they‘re not the only ones.  We‘ve got the top five celebrities gone wild on tape.

But we begin tonight with breaking news in the Duke rape scandal.  The accuser‘s parents told “Essence” magazine that their daughter was hospitalized recently for a psychiatric episode.  They also revealed that she has made similar rape charges before. 

In 1996 she filed a complaint alleging she‘d been assaulted three years earlier at the age of 14 by a group of three men.  The woman did not pursue that case, she says, out of fear for her safety.  Incidentally, that‘s almost exactly the same thing her father has been saying about this case at Duke. 

So is the Duke rape case all but over?  For more on this, we welcome MSNBC legal analyst Susan Filan, who joins us live—Susan.


CARLSON:  It‘s—hi, Susan.  I mean, I hate to gloat, since—and I‘m been one of the very few people from day one saying there‘s something about this case that makes me very uncomfortable.

FILAN:  Yes, you have.

CARLSON:  And Reade Seligmann, I‘ve said from the very beginning, was falsely charged.  I‘m just going to say that point blank.  Reade Seligmann didn‘t do it.  OK?

This doesn‘t prove she wasn‘t raped, obviously, but it raises questions that I think make any reasonable person very uncomfortable.  What‘s your reaction?

FILAN:  Well, here‘s the key question, Tucker.  Will this information ever get before a jury?  Probably not.  The 1996 accusation will probably never come before a jury, because it‘s probably not legally admissible. 

Why is that, you might ask?  There‘s something called rape shield, and what that says is you can‘t go into a victim‘s past, an alleged victim‘s past to find out was she sexually promiscuous, what else has she done, to try to show that it was either consensual or it was fabricated or it didn‘t happen. 

This is going to come under that rule, as well.  The only way that this will come into court, Tucker, and a jury will ever hear about this is if they can prove, the defense can prove that this was a false allegation.  And then it may come in to show a pattern of conduct or misconduct. 

Without that, the prosecution is going to fight like heck to keep it away from the jury.  The defense is going to fight like heck to keep it in.  But I‘ve got to tell you...

CARLSON:  It is so outrageous—so outrageous I can barely even contain myself. 

FILAN:  If I was a juror, OK, and I convicted these boys and I found out that this ‘96 claim had been made and it didn‘t come to my attention, I‘d be sick if I convicted.  So it may not under the rules of law come in, but it probably should under fundamentals. 

CARLSON:  Sure.  And the fact is that the names of the men she accused 10 years ago are on file.  They‘re available for you and me to look at if we want to, right? 

Also in the documentation, apparently this woman was unable to say exactly where the attack took place.  I think this is completely relevant and I also think it‘s relevant, very relevant, perhaps, that she was, according to her parents anyway, hospitalized for a psychiatric episode.  Will that be entered into evidence at the trial, do you think?

FILAN:  Back to the first one, we don‘t have trials within trials.  We‘re not going to try her on the other charge, find out she was lying then. 

CARLSON:  Right.

FILAN:  That‘s just not going to happen.

As far as the psychiatric reference, that‘s probably not going to come in either, because it‘s quite possible that somebody you love dearly was hospitalized last year but it doesn‘t mean that they weren‘t brutally raped last night. 

CARLSON:  It doesn‘t.

FILAN:  It doesn‘t mean that they aren‘t able to tell a story and it be true. 

However, I‘ve got to tell you, Tucker, when you put all of this together, and you add it up, if she‘s making this up, if she is lying, if she‘s got a screw loose or there‘s something wrong with her, she has set women back 100 years.  We don‘t need this kind of baggage.  It is hard enough to come forward and cry rape. 


CARLSON:  I disagree with you.  I don‘t think it sets back all women.  I‘ll tell you who it sets back.  It sets back the shrill women on television you have saluted here who have gotten on TV every day, instinctively, reflexively taking her side on the basis of no evidence simply because she is a woman.  Right.

The self-proceed—the self-proclaimed feminists saying she is telling the truth.  All women tell the truth at all times, which is a lie, as we know.  Nobody tells the truth at all times.  Right?  It sets those women back and they ought to be set back.  But I think most women will still be taken seriously.  People take rape seriously in this country, contrary to claims.

FILAN:  It‘s really, really, really, really hard to come forward and say you‘ve been raped.  It‘s really hard to testify under oath.  It‘s really hard.  And most...

CARLSON:  It‘s really hard to be accused of a crime you didn‘t commit, as these boys were warning. 

FILAN:  Sickening.  Absolutely sickening.  But many, many people in law enforcement instinctively react, and partly they‘re trained to do that, to disbelieve an accusation. 

So when a woman goes to a police station says I was just raped, they‘re like yes, OK, see if you can prove it. 

CARLSON:  Is that true?  Because hold on here.  There are all these laws that apply only to rape.  Rape shield.  That doesn‘t apply to armed robbery or murder or any other kind of criminal case I‘m aware of.  It applies only to rape. 

In fact, rape is set aside and apart from other crimes as maybe it

should be.  But because it is I think it‘s pretty clear sign we take it

really seriously.  And because we take it so seriously, women who falsely -

who charge rape falsely ought to be put away, including this woman, if it turns out she made this up. 

FILAN:  It pains me to agree with you, but you got that right.  You got that right.

CARLSON:  So what do you think is going to—just very quickly, prognosticate for me.  Is this going to go to trial?

FILAN:  No, and I‘ll tell you shy.  This victim is not going to go through with it.  Now, whether that‘s right or wrong, whether she was really raped and she can‘t take the media attention or whether this is a false claim and this is her easy way out, I don‘t know.  But she‘s not going to go through with this.  It‘s just not going to come to fruition.

And it‘s going to give the D.A. a very graceful way out.  He‘s never going to have to say, “I falsely indicted” or “I was wrong” or “I was hoodwinked.”  He‘s going to say, “I don‘t have a rape case without a victim.”  Anybody in a courtroom knows that.  There‘s no shame in that. 

As prosecutors our cases fall apart because witnesses won‘t come forward.  When the witness is the complainant and you can‘t go forward, you‘ve got to drop the charges. 

CARLSON:  I hope this guy moves to Paraguay in shame.  I hope the parents sue the city of Durham and I hope they sue the hell out of Duke University for judging before the facts were in. 

FILAN:  That will never happen. 

CARLSON:  I know it won‘t, but I‘m going to still keep barking about it on this show.  Susan Filan, thanks a lot for coming on.

FILAN:  Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Now to a story that has much of Washington running scared.  Sky high gas prices, and they are sky high.  The cost of filling up is driving motorists crazy, but today Senate Republican leaders announced a plan.

They want to give you a check for 100 bucks.  It‘s a tax rebate for all but the very highest earners, apparently whether or not you have a car.  So, rejoice, New York City, free money for you.

Majority Leader Bill Frist called the measure, quote, “a bold package that will give consumers some relief.”  A hundred dollars, to be precise. 

Of course, not everyone in Congress thinks a rebate is the best idea. 

Not even every Republican. 

Joining us now, Eric Cantor of Virginia.  Congressman Cantor, thanks for coming on.

REP. ERIC CANTOR, VIRGINIA:  Tucker, it‘s great to be with you.

CARLSON:  If you watched the coverage of gas prices, you‘d think they are high just because OPEC and the oil companies are getting rich.  But it looks to me, from the numbers we dug up that, that it‘s really the government that‘s getting rich off the sale of gas. 

Gas companies pay out more than twice in taxes what they make in profits every year for gasoline.  If you want to lower the price, should we dramatically cut taxes on gas?

CANTOR:  It‘s an interesting thought, Tucker.  There‘s any time I think we can get an opportunity to give families a break, and especially in times of stress like this, we ought to certainly take a look at it. 

But there‘s no question.  We‘re hearing a lot, as all your viewers, feeling it in the pocketbook this week, especially as prices continue to climb. 

CARLSON:  But it‘s—I mean, it‘s not just, you know, people who want to drive to Disney World on vacation.  It‘s the entire American economy is dependent on fossil fuels, gasoline specifically.  If the price keeps going up everybody is hurt by this. 

This idea that, you know, a $100 refund check to lower income people is going to solve much.  I mean, do you think it will?

CANTOR:  That‘s just a gimmick.  Let‘s get serious for a second. 

CARLSON:  Well, good.

CANTOR:  I mean—I mean, look, none of us likes to see this kind of price hike.  And there are a few things that we can do, perhaps, to have an impact in the short run to try and bring the price and try to encourage the markets to respond in a positive way. 

There are 17 different kinds of gasoline blends in this country.

CARLSON:  Right.

CANTOR:  Otherwise known as boutique fuels.  That creates a real

headache for our refiners and, frankly, causes a lot of stress on the

supply.  And the president has the authority and hopefully we will see that

he had the authority after Katrina to allow for those requirements to be waived and we will see a bill here in Congress shortly to once again give the president the authority to waive those requirements. 

CARLSON:  Good.  But the whole point, ostensibly, of those boutique fuels is to lower emissions and create less smog.  But there‘s some evidence that it‘s not terribly effective. 

On the other hand politics has a lot to do with it.  Corn growers in the Midwest put a lot of pressure on presidential candidates in both parties.  That‘s why we have ethanol.  Is anybody going to stand up and say ethanol is probably not worth it?

CANTOR:  It takes a commitment from all of us to long-term wean ourselves away from fossil fouls coming out of very unstable countries. 

HAMMER:  In the meantime, Congressman—and right, and presumably you‘re for further oil exploration, including in Alaska? 

CANTOR:  I was going to say, “Hey, look.  Look to our south.  Look to Venezuela.  Look to Brazil particularly.  Brazil has done a great job in turning their transportation fleet into one which operates 70 percent off of the sugar derived fuel. 

CARLSON:  Which sounds promising.

In the meantime, what do you think of this controversy over the CEO golden parachute, essentially, at ExxonMobil: $400 million Lee Raymond received upon retirement, give or take.  What do you think of that?  Is that excessive?

CANTOR:  Well, first of all, I would probably give the board of Exxon, you know, an “F” for timing and perhaps a tin ear to the public as to what‘s going on. 

You know, look, profit is not a bad word in America.

CARLSON:  But 400 million bucks?

CANTOR:  But 400 million bucks, again, sounds a little, to say the least, exorbitant. 

But you know, look, if there are these kinds of profits in our oil companies, perhaps you know, we ought to look at what‘s going on, how they got to the profit.  I mean, I assume that they based the prices based on what‘s going on in the futures market.

CARLSON:  One assumes.

CANTOR:  And the future and the markets obviously want to take into consideration any risk associated with the production of oil supply. 

CARLSON:  That‘s a pretty big reward, I have to say.  That is big.

CANTOR:  Something seems amiss. 

CARLSON:  I hope, Congressman, that you will get to the bottom of it. 

Congressman Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia.  Thank you very much. 

CANTOR:  Tucker, thanks. 

CARLSON:  All week members of Congress have been doing their best to display heartfelt concern and deep moral outrage about gas prices. 

Senator Barbara Boxer held a one-woman rally at an Exxon station to attack the Bush administration‘s relationship with big oil.  Then as the “Washington Post” reported this morning, Boxer jumped into a gas guzzling Chrysler for the block-long ride to her office. 

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York did virtually the same thing, choosing to drive mere yards back to the Capitol from his photo op. 

The list of politicians who espouse belt tightening and conservation for you and me but not for themselves is endless.  Dianne Feinstein rides in a town car.  Ted Kennedy in a minivan.  Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana uses an eight-cylinder Dodge Durango.  That gets 14 miles to the gallon.

The point here is obvious: they‘re hypocrites and self-righteous, too.  So here‘s the new rule.  If you drive a block to work where you own an SUV or you fly in any sort of private aircraft for any time any reason ever, just once, don‘t say word one to me about fuel economy.  You haven‘t earned the right. 

Still to come, exorbitant gas prices cause anger throughout the United States, but one small county in Texas has decided to take matters into its own hand.  Will a new resolution calling for a boycott of ExxonMobil actually work?  Maybe so.  We‘ll bring you the full details in just a minute.

Plus, a brutal seven minute videotape on features two teenage girls brawling.  We‘ll tell you why these combatants may not be the only ones in trouble when we come back.


CARLSON:  Tonight‘s “Under the Radar” segment comes to us from the tiny Texas community of Bee County. 

ExxonMobil, the world‘s largest oil company, posted its biggest ever first quarter profits today, with earnings topping $8 billion just for the first three months of this year.  To put that into some perspective, that is the fifth highest quarterly profit for any public country—company, rather, in the history of this country. 

And while Washington wrestles with the question of what to do about gas prices, Bee County has taken matters into its own hands.  The county has passed a resolution asking drivers to boycott ExxonMobil gasoline until retailers agree to drop the retail price to $1.30 a gallon. 

Our next guest says, quote, “We have to stand up for our people.” 

Joining me now from Beeville, Texas, Judge Jimmy Martinez, who is on the left, and Bee County consultant, David Flores on the right.

Judge Martinez, Mr. Flores, thanks for coming on. 

JUDGE JIMMY MARTINEZ, BEE COUNTY, TEXAS:  Thank you, Tucker, for inviting us. 

CARLSON:  Thank you.  Judge Martinez, Bee County, great place, very small.  Do you think a boycott there is going to have any effect on ExxonMobil?

MARTINEZ:  Yes, it will have an effect.  We are overwhelmed with the response since the commissioners‘ board passed this resolution.  We have been invited to so many programs and shows throughout the nation, even international.  We just got off the phone with BBC out of London. 

Yes, this will work.  And it all starts at the grassroots level.  And this is where we are.

CARLSON:  But why ExxonMobil?  I mean, there are a lot of gas companies, and they‘re all posting record profits this year.  Why single out this one?

MARTINEZ:  Well, apparently ExxonMobil the largest one in the country. 

They surpass Wal-Mart. 

We‘re in crisis today with gasoline.  Everyone knows that.  But ExxonMobil continues to post those record-breaking profits.  Absolutely that tells me and the citizens of Bee County that they are not experiencing any crisis like we are. 

Now, we‘re asking them to also be part of—and experience the crisis with us.  Go ahead and come down on your prices.  You can do that.  You know, when you have a company that is rewarding a retiree $400 million in a package, there‘s something wrong with the picture. 

CARLSON:  I agree with you completely.  I think it‘s disgusting, and it‘s—you know, it may be legal but you shouldn‘t do it.  It‘s greedy.

But the fact is, as high as those profits are, the government is taking more than twice as much in taxes directly from consumers.  In other words, ExxonMobil may be making out from the gas crisis, but the government is doing even better on the gas crisis.  Shouldn‘t we boycott government?  Shouldn‘t we direct some of that anger toward the federal government?

MARTINEZ:  We are being told so many things that we‘re confused, and we have been conditioned by the oil companies.  You know, whatever they say, it‘s fine.  But when they post those record-breaking profits something is wrong here. 

CARLSON:  OK.  Mr. Flores, what about citizens of Bee County who live near ExxonMobil stations or who work at them?  This will hurt them, won‘t it is?

DAVID FLORES, CONSULTANT FOR BEE COUNTY, TEXAS:  Well, we‘ve addressed that issue in the county.  We have three ExxonMobil stations here...

CARLSON:  What do they think?

FLORES:  They‘re encouraging—well, they‘re a little concerned and encouraging citizens... 

CARLSON:  I bet they are. 

FLORES:  They‘re encouraging citizens to shop at the food mart.  Shop at the store, buy their products.  They sell 100 other types of products.  We‘re just asking them not to buy one of them. 

And the gasoline is the product that they make the least profit on. 

That‘s the money that‘s going out of Bee County into the pockets of Exxon.  The commodities such as sodas, water, food or bread stays here locally.  So we‘re not boycotting the local company. 

CARLSON:  Right.

FLORES:  We‘re just boycotting Exxon. 

CARLSON:  Judge Martinez, have you heard from ExxonMobil?  I mean, at some point if you‘re doing all these media, they‘re going to—they‘re going to give you a call.  Have they called yet?

MARTINEZ:  No, sir.  They have not called yet.

CARLSON:  If they do what are you going to say?

MARTINEZ:  I‘d like to visit with them.  I‘d like to ask some questions. 

CARLSON:  OK.  Well, what—just tell me quickly, what‘s your first question?

MARTINEZ:  Well, who decides what the price would be at the pump next week?  Who specifically in your company decides that?  And how did they arrive at that?

Now when you continue showing these exorbitant amount of profits how did you arrive at those figures?  Tell us.  Tell us at the local level.  We don‘t understand that.  We‘re just a small county in rural areas, and I know that there are hundreds of thousands of more throughout the nation.

But you need to come down to our level.  You need to tell us what it is that you‘re doing with all this money.  All I know is that I‘m listening to my constituents and listening to the working people.  We are at the ground zero here.  We are in contact with our constituents on a daily basis.  This is not about politics.  This is about pain and struggles. 

CARLSON:  I‘m going to make a prediction, judge.  I bet by the end of business tomorrow you will have a team of ExxonMobil P.R. consultants on your doorstep taking you to lunch and a round of golf.  So you give them hell when they show up. 

Judge Jimmy Martinez, consultant David Flores, joining us both from Beeville, Texas, tonight.  Thanks very much. 

FLORES:  Thank you, Tucker.  Appreciate you.

CARLSON:  Thank you. 

Last night I gave you my take on Neil Young‘s Bush-hating new anthem

called “Let‘s Impeach the President”.  I love the title.  A lot of you took

at home took exception to my views on that subject and wrote nasty e-mails.  We thought we‘d resurrect the debate, and we will in just a minute.

Plus, why on earth did a popular TV show decide to bring Rosie O‘Donnell into the mix.  We‘ll bring the full bodied details next. 


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  There‘s a growing chorus of opposition to President Bush, of course, and it‘s being song by the likes of Pearl Jam, Bruce Springsteen and the rocker Pink.

But the most ear-piercing lyrics of all come from Canadian Neil Young, who releases the first song on his album, “Living with War” on the Internet tomorrow.  On the album, a not so subtle rebuke to Mr. Bush.  It‘s entitled, “Let‘s Impeach the President”. 

Here to talk about this song is Air America host, our favorite lefty Rhodes scholar, Rachel Maddow—Rachel. 


CARLSON:  You‘re the only Rhodes Scholar I know. 

MADDOW:  I‘m your favorite?

CARLSON:  You‘re my favorite.  You win. 

MADDOW:  Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON:  OK.  Now I know you have a special in to the washed up protest rocker community, so maybe you can translate this stanza for me.

Quote, “What if al Qaeda blew up the levees?  Would New Orleans have been safer that way?  Sheltered by our government‘s protection.  Or was someone just not home that day?”

Good stuff.  Sounds like someone‘s just not home in Neil Young‘s house.   But how does that mean?

MADDOW:  You should invite Neil Young on and have him explain. 

CARLSON:  He wouldn‘t—I don‘t think he would come.  So we have—we have you.

MADDOW:  My interpretation of this art...


MADDOW:  ... as a radio show host would be that he‘s saying, you know what, when New Orleans got wiped off the map a lot of Americans were scared that if that had been another terrorist attack our response was that bad we‘d be in really bad shape as a country. 


MADDOW:  How about that? 

CARLSON:  Nice try.  Nice try.

MADDOW:  What‘s the matter with Neil Young writing a protest song? 

American rock ‘n‘ roll has always...

CARLSON:  I totally—look, you‘ll never hear me contesting the legal right, certainly, of anybody to write basically anything.  So I‘m not saying he doesn‘t have a right to do it.  Good luck, Neil Young, you loser. 

But I‘m just saying, it‘s so conventional and so stupid.  I wish—here‘s my point.  Here‘s my point.  If you‘re going to be a protester, be cutting edge.  Be interesting.  Cut against the grain of popular—of popular and received wisdom.  Right?  So a real cutting edge song would be like “Go Bush, you‘re cool.”  Everyone hates Bush. 

So the next stanza.  Here it is.  “Let‘s impeach the president for hijacking our religion and using it to get elected.  Dividing our country into colors.  And still leaving black people neglected.”


CARLSON:  That‘s—I think you can say a lot of things about Bush, I don‘t think he‘s super smart.  I think Iraq is a disaster.  I think he‘s arrogant, whatever.  He‘s not a racist.  They hit the same notes every time, and they‘re false notes.  And they‘re stupid notes.

MADDOW:  No, I mean, you look at Katrina.  Black people disproportionately affected by Katrina. 

CARLSON:  It‘s not Bush‘s fault.

MADDOW:  The response to Katrina is Bush‘s fault.  The government in action in response to it is Bush‘s fault. 

But whether you agree with Neil Young in a situation like this, the fact is about, you know, 70 percent of the American public thinks that Bush is doing a bad job as president.  About 30 percent thinks he‘s doing a good job, if you look at the polls.  So you know, that leaves 90 million Americans among whom some could sing.  And maybe they could...

CARLSON:  But that‘s the point.  That is exactly the point.  You made the point exactly. 


CARLSON:  The very point I wanted to make, which is now these so-called cutting edge rockers are actually voicing majority opinion.  They‘re on the side much of every dumb soccer mom with an SUV, right?  Bush is bad.  He was mean to the people in New Orleans.

When is, like, the truly radical political equivalent of punk rock going to come out where somebody says something unexpected?

MADDOW:  I can see.  It‘s going to be you and Bo Derek and Ron Silver, and you will do a duet together.  And you‘ll do a duet about the things that people love about Bush.  He‘s a really good exerciser.  People love that.  He‘s very handsome.  The Bush twins are pretty. 

CARLSON:  I‘m not a Bush fan.  OK?  I‘m not a Bush fan.  I‘m not a Bush defender.  I think he‘s better than the left.  But I‘m still not a fan.

I want to love Bush because all the conventional people, all the people had take their cues from, like, “The New York Times” and other kind of middle brow organs like that, they hate him.  You‘re supposed to hate him.  Still want to love him, though.

MADDOW:  Tucker, people hate toenail fungus, too.  That doesn‘t make loving toenail fungus the radical cool thing.  Sometimes people hate Bush because Bush is the worst president ever. 

CARLSON:  Where are the real radicals?  I want the real radicals to show up, somewhere. 

MADDOW:  You know where they are?

CARLSON:  They‘re the libertarians.  They‘re the real radicals.  They‘re like the people who actually say things you hadn‘t thought of before.  Not Neil Young.

MADDOW:  I love toenail fungus.  All right, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Love exercise.  Rachel Maddow, thank you very much. 

MADDOW:  Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON:  See you next week.


CARLSON:  Still to come, Bjork goes berserk.  She‘s not the only one with a serious case of air rage.  Our top five airport meltdowns are next.

Plus, the office might be the last place you expect to see people wearing diapers and getting spanked.  Maybe the first place.  In any case, it happened in Fresno, California, with the boss‘ approval.  Now one of the employees is suing over the humiliation.  We‘ll talk to her lawyer, next.


CARLSON:  Still to come, fraternity hazing rituals in the workplace.  A woman spanked by co-workers now wants a million bucks for the public humiliation.  Plus, rapper Snoop Dogg gets thrown in the pound.  Details on his airport brawl and subsequent arrest coming up.  But first here is what else is going on in the world tonight. 


CARLSON:  Now to a story that has a client of my next guest really hot and bothered. 

Fifty-three-year-old Janet Orlando quit her job at a home security company after she allegedly was spanked in front of co-workers as part of what her employer calls, quote, “a camaraderie building exercise.” 

This exercise also included employees wearing diapers while being fed baby food.  Kinky.

Orlando sued her company, Alarm One, for $1.2 million.  Closing arguments were heard this afternoon.  To find out more about this bizarre lawsuit, we bring in Ms. Orlando‘s lawyer, Butch Wagner.  He joins us tonight live from Fresno, California.

Mr. Wagner, thanks for coming on. 


CARLSON:  I‘m doing great. 

I read today an account of your testimony in this case, in which you suggested that your client had spent many thousands on psychiatric care in the aftermath of being spanked?  Is that true?

WAGNER:  No, she hasn‘t spent anything on psychiatric care.  That was for future psychiatric care. 

CARLSON:  Then why would she—why would she deserve $1.2 million for getting spanked?

WAGNER:  Well, that $1.2 million is a figure that the economists came up with, assuming that she would earn a certain amount of money every week for her remaining work life expectancy.  But that‘s not the amount that—that we suggested be awarded for lost future wages.  It was a lower amount and there‘s three elements of damages at this phase of the trial. 

CARLSON:  OK, but hold on.  The bottom line is you want a ton of money because she got spanked.  There were other employees who were spanked.  I don‘t think they‘re suing.  Let‘s face it, who cares?  Why is this a big deal?  I‘m confused.  Some people might think it‘s...

WAGNER:  When you say who cares?

CARLSON:  Right.

WAGNER:  Yes, I know.  I know.  And that‘s why there‘s—there are a few people that like to get spanked from what I understand, but Mrs.  Orlando didn‘t on this occasion or these occasions in the workplace. 

I think the reason that this case has gotten to the point where it is with such a huge concern is because it‘s going to be a benchmark for what an employer can get away with in the workplace. 

CARLSON:  It‘s a benchmark in the history of spanking.  But wait, hold on.  Why, with all due respect, why didn‘t when the employer came out apparently she was spanked with a yard sign as part of what the employer called a camaraderie exercise.  Why didn‘t she say, “Hold on, you‘re not spanking me”?

I mean, at some point, not to blame the victim here, but if she bends over and there‘s a yard sign coming at her butt she‘s complicit in the spanking, no?

WAGNER:  Well, no, that‘s not true—I mean, if it‘s between that and your losing your job and you agree to it to keep your job, that‘s not valid consent. 

CARLSON:  Did the employer say you get spanked or you lose your job?

WAGNER:  Well, I‘ll give you an example.  One young lady said she refused to get up there, and one of the men there picked her up and brought her and carried her to the front of the class and bend her over and spanked her.

So you could refuse but that‘s what you might happen if you refused.

CARLSON:  Did she have spanking dreams?  I mean, at this point, I‘m trying to understand.

WAGNER:  She‘s had a lot of nightmares since then.  Since that.

CARLSON: About spanking?

WAGNER:  By being held down and raped at the workplace.  Of course, these are dreams but they‘re symptomatic of the trauma that she experienced going to work.  She had to get through this torturing at the office on a daily basis so she could get out there and sell. 

CARLSON:  I‘m sorry, I mean, I think she was just spanked—she wasn‘t tortured for a couple of days.  She wasn‘t in an underground bunker, you know, chained to a bed.  Wasn‘t she just part of one of these dopey, you know, spirit building exercises?  Didn‘t she role—wasn‘t she role playing?

WAGNER:  There was—there‘s no question this was a lot of fun for a lot of people, Tucker.  Most of them are 20-year-old boys. 

CARLSON:  She sounds like a pretty fragile plant. 

WAGNER:  Pardon me?

CARLSON:  She sounds pretty fragile.

WAGNER:  She is a 21 -- she is—actually, she was pretty tough.  Most women couldn‘t endure this one time but frankly she needed the job and there wasn‘t—you know, you‘re 52-year-old, and she doesn‘t have the fat contract you got there. 

CARLSON:  But she did—but she did have money from her previous sex harassment suit, and then I guess she was busted for shoplifting.  So she had those goods, as well, didn‘t she?

WAGNER:  She gave back the shoplifting items. 


WAGNER:  She never even—but she—she—what happened...

CARLSON:  OK.  We‘re almost out of time, so you want to sum it up for us. 

WAGNER:  Sum what up?

CARLSON:  Sum up her position?

WAGNER:  Well, you know, she lost her job because of it.  And the company isn‘t it Fresno any more as far as—they have offices other places.  Some people were transferred from the Fresno office.  And she probably would have been had she not—had she still been there because she was, I think, the top salesperson in Fresno.


WAGNER:  So she would have, you know—she‘d probably still be working for the company. 

CARLSON:  Look, I didn‘t mean to be too harsh.  I don‘t in any way to mock someone who...

WAGNER:  You better be nice to me.  If you‘re not nice to me...

CARLSON:  Look, if she‘s genuinely scarred by this, I don‘t mean to mock her, and I‘m sorry if I went overboard.  It just seems—it seems a lot of money for something that I think, for the average person, would not be that important. 

WAGNER:  The jury is going to determine that...

CARLSON:  You‘re right. 

WAGNER:  And it was more than just a spanking she went through.—

CARLSON:  I know.  But Mr. Wagner, I‘m afraid we‘re out of time.  Yes.  I‘m sorry we‘re out of time, but I look forward to finding out what happens in this case. 

WAGNER:  All right. 

CARLSON:  Thanks a lot for joining us. 

WAGNER:  OK.  Have a good evening. 

We turn now to a man who once paid somebody $1.2 million to spank him. 

He is “The Outsider,” ESPN Radio and HBO Boxing host, Max Kellerman. 

MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO:  Defending George Bush and attacking little old ladies?  Tucker, come on.

CARLSON:  Not old ladies.   It‘s just—you feel like people rip off the system with these...

KELLERMAN:  Yes.  Frivolous lawsuits.

CARLSON:  But then, you know, I don‘t know.  You know, I don‘t mean to be mean.

KELLERMAN:  George Bush, you know what the worst thing about Neil Young‘s lyrics are, Tucker?  It‘s like this whole conspiracy theory nonsense.  You don‘t need any mysterious theory to attack George Bush.  He‘s a disaster. 

CARLSON:  Yes, but what you‘re talking about, that‘s like the opposite of cutting edge.  So hackneyed and boring.  I‘m sorry, “Bush is bad.”  OK, settle down. 

Well, there is outrage in Fresno, California, tonight, another Fresno story.  After a video published on the Internet shows a mother standing by and watching as her teenage daughter brutally beats another girl. 

The video of the seven-minute fight recently showed up on the website  Police say the mother drove her daughter to find the other girl so the fight could take place.  Authorities now considering child endangerment charges for the mo, because she had opportunity and failed to intervene. 

Luckily, the girl suffered ONLY minor injuries.  So is the woman is—

I don‘t know if she‘s criminally responsible for what happened here.  Some are saying I don‘t know if she is criminally responsible.  But it‘s little girls.  Little girls shouldn‘t be set up to fight each other.

I mean, it‘s more than unladylike.  It‘s creepy, I think.  And this parent, I think there‘s something wrong with the woman. 

KELLERMAN:  Do you have time for a quick story, Bucker?  It‘s a good one..  The greatest winner in the history of American team sports, Bill Russell.  I heard him tell a story where he was in a new neighborhood.  I think they moved to a new neighborhood.

And he passed a stoop or something.  There were five bullies that bullied him home.  He runs home, tells his mother what happened.  She took him back to where the five kids were and made him fight each one of them, one at a time. 

The way Bill Russell tells it he thinks he lost—he won two and lost three, but the point is he fought them.  Now...

CARLSON:  Yes, and I‘m totally for that, incidentally. 

KELLERMAN:  That is one of those fights that was captured on MySpace, Tucker, back then.  And what if it happened to be one of the two fights he won.  Bill Russell‘s mother wouldn‘t be in trouble for raising one of the greatest winners of all time. 

CARLSON:  I‘m on Bill Russell‘s side.  I‘m on Bill Russell‘s mother‘s side.  I‘m on the side of every parent who says to his or her son, “Yet back out there and stand up for yourself.”  It happened to me when I was little.  I‘m sure it happened to.  It is a good thing. 

Bill Russell is not a little girl.  And that‘s the difference here, in my opinion.  I think there‘s something very different about sending a little girl into a fist fight than there is sending a little boy into fistfights. 

KELLERMAN:  OK.  I understand that.  And the difference in gender.  I think it‘s reasonable.  However, I think the real problem here is that they happened to capture—I mean, the fight happened to be her daughter winning the fight.  If her daughter were losing the fight, maybe people wouldn‘t feel the same way. 

Here‘s what I would find objectionable, Tucker.  Were her daughter losing the fight and she jumped in on her daughter‘s side and started to beat the other girl, that she goes to jail for.  I mean, that‘s bad.

But standing by, passively, and allowing a fist fight to take place.  There were no weapons.  This was not life and death.  It was a good old fashioned fist fight.  Now it was between girls and not boys, and you have certain gender biases in that regard.  I think they‘re reasonable.  However, that‘s still what it was. 

CARLSON:  Spoken like a true boxing analyst.  You know, it‘s not an accident, Max, that you‘re the HBO boxing analyst.  Thank you, Max.

KELLERMAN:  Thank you. 

CARLSON:  See you next week.

Rapper Snoop Dogg‘s bite apparently is every bit as bad as his bark.  He and five travel companions now facing charges of violent disorder following a fracas at London‘s Heathrow Airport.  Seven cops reportedly hit during the brawl, though none of them serious injured. 

Whisky bottles began flying at a duty free shop when Snoop Dogg and his entourage were refused entry to a first class lounge and subsequently denied permission to board their plane.  In tonight‘s “Top Five” we check this other incidents in by others flew off the handle and landed into hot water.


CARLSON (voice-over):  It seems the friendly skies are not what they used to be.  The FAA tells us air rage is climbing sky high.  So buckle your seat belts.  You may be in for a bumpy flight. 

Don‘t let those cute shorts fool you.  Richard Simmons packs a mean wallop. 


CARLSON:   As this ex-con and part-time cage wrestler discovered when he teased the fitness revenue at an Arizona airport two years ago.  Simmons responded with a bitch slap. 

SIMMONS:  He could have killed me.  He was, like, a wrestler or something.

CARLSON:  But the slappee eventually got the upper hand in civil court.

On a flight from Argentina to New York in 1995, banking president Gerard Finnerton (ph) apparently couldn‘t wait for an unoccupied lavatory.  So Finnerton (ph) made a deposit on the airplane‘s food cart, instead, forever leaving an irreparable stain on his reputation. 

Thirty-four-year-old Sandrine Salis (ph) had a perfectly good excuse for trying to open an airplane emergency exit door in mid flight last year.  Sandrine (ph) told the judge she had a fear of flying and, oh yes, she also needed a smoke.  Maybe Sandrine (ph) should try the patch. 

Supermodel May Anderson may look hot in a bikini but here‘s what she looks like after a bad flight.  The 23-year-old bombshell reportedly exploded last week while flying from Amsterdam to Miami and struck a flight attendant.  She‘s been charged with displaying less then model behavior.

Perhaps better known for her crazy outfit than her music career, Bjork‘s dress once drew foul criticism.  But the singer‘s reputation took another swan dive in 1996 she flew into the Bangkok airport and then flew into a rage at the site of a TV crew.  And to think, all this poor reporter said to Bjork was “Welcome to Thailand.”  Perhaps just another extreme case of travel stress.

NICOLAS CAGE, ACTOR:  Then what?  I‘ll be arrested, put in airport jail.  Just get your ticket and move on.  OK?  Get your damn ticket and move on. 


CARLSON:  Coming up on THE SITUATION, does the government really think it can get away with forcing to you take a breathalyzer test every time you get into your own car?  Of course it does.  We‘ll discuss this gross violation of your privacy when THE SITUATION rolls on.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Time for our voicemail segment.  All week long we save and catalogue and play and replay your voicemail left on our machine.  We play the best back on Thursday.  Here‘s the first.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Joanne (ph), Red Bank, New Jersey.  Excuse me, Tucker, but you‘re a phony and a bigot.  That girl was raped and you guys know it.  But those also knew that if they got them a black woman they could get away with it.  And guess what?  You‘re disgracing this woman.  You‘re doing everything you can to say she‘s guilty, but she‘s not, because white boys think they can do anything they want and get away with it.  And you know what?  They probably can, because they got fools like you behind them. 


CARLSON:  Joanne, I don‘t think that‘s fair at all.  I think I‘m assessing this case on its merits.  And literally from day one I thought there was something wrong with this case.  It didn‘t smell right.  Race literally had nothing to do with it, as God watches.  It had nothing to do with my reaction to this case. 

My reaction had everything to do with the fact it isn‘t seem like there was any evidence against these kids.  And I will be proven right.  These guys are—at least one of them, Reade Seligmann, didn‘t do it.  He did not do it.  And you will, I hope, call back and admit that in the end when this case is dropped. 

Next up.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  This is Robert from Osceola, Arkansas.  And I was thinking last night about the device that keeps people from drinking and driving, but the way to get around that very simply would just be to have a designated breather.  Instead of having a designated driver, which would be much safer, have a designated breather blow in the device, and whoever wanted to drive the car could still drive it.


CARLSON:  You thought this through, haven‘t you, Robert?  That‘s very clever. 

Next up. 


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Christie from Akron, Ohio.  I think it‘s adorable that you think Angelina Jolie is overrated.  And I think the only one impressed when Scarlet Johansson made the top of the similar list.  But it piqued my 100 most beautiful people?


CARLSON:  Those women are—yes, they‘re pretty, whatever.  But it‘s way, way, way, too obvious.  I mean, I can think of a couple off the top of my head.  I would start, though, with the Ditech lady.  You‘ve seen those ads for  There she is.  OK, this woman.  These ads play on our air all day long.  Especially that shot right there. 

She is the sexy librarian.  Like at first, you don‘t really get it.  She‘s just like Mrs. Johnson from next door.  You know, Timmy‘s mom?  But the deeper you look, the cuter she is.  I think there‘s something there.  Maybe I watch too much cable news.  I don‘t know.  Maybe I revealed too much. 

Keep the calls coming.  That number, 1-877-TCARLSON.  That‘s 877-822-7576.  We‘ll play the best of your voicemails again next Tuesday and every Thursday.  Not Tuesday, Thursday. 

Anyway, still ahead on THE SITUATION, a baseball player flips out and attacks an umpire with his bat.  We‘ll tell you what prompted this moment of temporary insanity when we visit “The Cutting Room Floor.”


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Time for the “Cutting Room Floor.”  And here he is, ladies and gentlemen, Willie Geist. 

WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER:  Hello, Tucker.  I want to assure our viewers that you are not kidding about the Ditech lady. 

CARLSON:  No, I wasn‘t kidding at all.  I‘ll admit it.  Look, there you go. 

GEIST:  He‘s actually—there she is.  He‘s actually really pushy about it.  There she is.  She looks pretty good.  It‘s a nice scarf draped around.

CARLSON:  You have to look deeply.  You don‘t notice it at first but if you watch that spot maybe three or four thousand times she grows on you.  As I have.

GEIST:  Yes.  Tucker will lock you into his office and explain to you why you should also love the Ditech lady.  So just give in and like her.  He‘ll leave you alone.

CARLSON:  It‘s an acquired taste.  It takes a long time to acquire.

GEIST:  I‘m working on it.

CARLSON:  If you worked in cable news, you‘d feel the same way.

Well, when Meredith Vieira decided to bolt “The View” for “The Today Show”, she left an empty chair right there next to the great Star Jones.  And it appears that chair has now been filled.  Reports say Rosie O‘Donnell will replace Vieira on “The View”.  Rosie had a successful talk show of her own a few years back.  There‘s no word about when she‘ll join the girls on “The View”. 

GEIST:  Tucker, I would pay just to see the battles at the craft service table between Rosie and Star Jones.  Put that on TV.  Forget your show.  Put that on TV.

I have always said “The View” is about the institution.  It‘s not about the moving parts. 

CARLSON:  I agree.

GEIST:  It doesn‘t matter who you put in the seat, the show is going to succeed. 

CARLSON:  It‘s bigger than one washed up talk show host.  You know what I mean?  Totally.

GEIST:  You‘re a “View” viewer, aren‘t you?

CARLSON:  I‘m a “View” viewer.  I was on “The View” once.

GEIST:  Were you really?

CARLSON:  Actually, I had a great time.  Yes, I was.  They were really nice. 

GEIST:  I go Danza at 10 right into “The View.” 

CARLSON:  Right into “The View”. 

GEIST:  It‘s a good one to watch.

CARLSON:  Smoking Salems at your kitchen table and a cup of coffee.

GEIST:  Yes.

CARLSON:  Arguing with the umpires is as much a part of baseball tradition as hot dogs and the seventh inning stretch, but the arguments don‘t usually turn violent, as this one did. 

Delmon Young, a promising minor league prospect, was called out on strikes and then was thrown out of the game for arguing the call.  On his way back to the dugout, Young threw his bat at home plate and the umpire and his him in the chest.  Young has been suspended indefinitely. 

GEIST:  Yes.  You just can‘t get away with that, Tucker. 

This guy was the No. 1 pick in the baseball draft.  He‘s actually supposed to be a huge star.  And he may have just cost himself millions and millions of dollars by doing that, because there‘s a good chance he gets blackballed for something like that. 

CARLSON:  That‘s a pretty heavy thing to do, throw a bat at somebody. 

GEIST:  You can‘t do that. 

CARLSON:  I mean, try not to judge, but come on.

Well, like herpes or a bad case of athlete‘s foot, Amy Fisher and Joey Buttafuco simply will not go away.  In a new interview with “Entertainment Tonight”, the insider—and “The Insider”, Fisher says she was high on Ecstasy when she shot Mary Jo Buttafuco in the head in ‘92. 

Quote, “I was using a lot of Ecstasy.  I had no control.”

Fisher served seven years in prison for that attack. 

GEIST:  All right, Tucker.  I don‘t have firsthand knowledge, but my sources tell me Ecstasy actually makes you do the opposite. 

CARLSON:  This is the love drug.

GEIST:  Right?  You knock on the door.  You‘re all sweaty.  You tell her how much you love her and you have a glow stick and you dance. 

CARLSON:  Like I really care, Willie.  I really care.  I‘ve never had the guts to tell you. 

GEIST:  She picked the wrong drug for that defense. 

CARLSON:  Willie, thank you.

That‘s it for us tonight.  Have a great weekend.  See you Monday. 



Copy: Content and programming copyright 2006 NBC.  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 NBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.