'The Situation with Tucker Carlson' for May 1

Guests: Juan Jose Gutierrez, Tom Tancredo, Wendy Murphy

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Thank you.  And thanks to you at home for tuning in.  We appreciate it, as we always do. 

Tonight, illegal immigration.  One of the nation‘s most pressing social issues spills into the streets and onto computer screens, as well.  We‘ll tell you about a new online video game that encourages players to kill virtual illegal immigrants. 

Also ahead, n angry confrontation at the gates of Duke University and calls for the D.A. to step down there.  We‘ll have the latest in the Duke rape investigation.

Plus, Steven Colbert bombs at the White House Correspondents Association dinner.  But can he crack our list of top five pitiful on-stage performances?  We‘ll show you.

Bur first, organizers called it A Day Without Immigrants.  There were many immigrants, more than one million of them across the country that skipped work and school and took to the streets to march in support of rights for illegal immigrants. 

In Los Angeles alone, the port of L.A. was virtually shut down, and more than a quarter of the students in that city skipped school entirely. 

MSNBC‘s Jennifer London is live in Los Angeles with the latest tonight—Jennifer.


Can you imagine what it would be like when a half million people converge on downtown city halls here in Los Angeles?  That‘s exactly what happened here earlier today.  And I can tell you, the protests, the demonstrations, the march is still going strong.  In fact, a group has reconvened on the south side of the city hall lawn.  I don‘t know, we‘ll have our camera pan over, where you can see the crowd is starting to disperse a little bit. 

About 20 minutes ago, hundreds, perhaps a few thousand were gathered again on the south side of city hall.  Earlier today, we had about a half million people here for one march.  There was a second march or rally which went down Wilshire Boulevard later this evening.  We are being told as many as 400,000 people gathered for that march and rally. 

So far as the protests today have been peaceful.  But we have seen the cops.  They have shut off the street in front of city hall again.  And we do see the police out in riot gear and they are prepared for anything. 

But again, although the protests and the rallies today, they were very emotional at times and very intense, again for the most part they were peaceful. 

Earlier today, when they gathered outside of city hall they chanted for justice, they were chanting for equality.  They were screaming viva America. 

Tucker, a lot of the protesters that I had a chance to speak with said, you know, this isn‘t about one person.  It‘s not about one city.  It‘s about a nation of illegal immigrants who are demanding that they have a fair path to citizenship. 

We‘re being told that major businesses along the demonstration route today were not affected.  However, small businesses in the Latino community were greatly affected.  Many of those business did close voluntarily so that the workers would be given a chance to participate in today‘s marches. 

But other shop owners said, look, with the amount of crowds that were expected to gather they wanted to close down, because they simply didn‘t want to any—to take any chance of vandalism or violence.  But again, the protests, for the most part today were peaceful. 

And despite city leaders urging the students to stay in school today and join the protests later this evening after school, we‘re told as many as 72,000 middle and high school students did skip class today to take to the streets—Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Thanks, Jennifer.  Jennifer London in Los Angeles.  Thanks. 

The effects of today‘s boycott today were felt across the country, not just in Los Angeles.  Tyson Foods, the world‘s largest chicken producer, shut down about a dozen plants.  And Goya suspended delivery everywhere, except the state of Florida in an expression of solidarity with illegal aliens. 

And more than half the workers at construction sites in Miami-Dade County reportedly didn‘t show up today.  But did the boycott work?  What was the point of the boycott anyway?  And was it all worth it? 

Juan Jose Gutierrez is one of the organizers of the boycott.  He‘s director of Latino Movement USA, and on the Los Angeles steering committee of ANSWER.  It is Act Now to Stop War and End Racism.  Mr. Gutierrez joins us tonight from San Francisco. 



CARLSON:  “We are here and we are not leaving” went one of the chants today in Los Angeles.  We‘re here and we‘re not leaving.  My first response is how dare someone who was not in this country legally tell the legal residents we‘re not leaving?  I mean, it takes a lot of guts to say something like that, don‘t you think?

GUTIERREZ:  Tucker, the translation is we love this country.  We want to become Americans.  Cut us a fair deal, just like Franklin Roosevelt did the New Deal.  We want that deal to be extended to us in a manner of speaking. 

CARLSON:  FDR was for illegal—I mean, look, FDR was for illegal immigration?  I don‘t really understand what the point is beyond what the actual slogan is, “We‘re here and we‘re not leaving.”  In other words, you can—you have no power over us.  You can‘t tell us what to do.  But in fact, we can.  We‘re American citizens.  They‘re not.  And it does seem—it does seem a bit much, doesn‘t it?

GUTIERREZ:  No, it‘s a dramatic way of saying, “Look, you know, we‘ve got to solve the problem.  Our immigration system is broken.  It‘s time to act.  Let‘s stop playing politics with the issue.”  Undocumented... 

CARLSON:  Wait, wait, wait.  Wait, what do you mean stop playing politics?  You had a million people on the street today making a political statement about the issue.  I mean, who‘s playing politics?  You didn‘t see a million American citizens out there, did you?

GUTIERREZ:  Well, I mean, a million people in L.A. alone, but there were 14 other demonstrations in and around Southern California.  There were millions of people that didn‘t go to work today, students that didn‘t go to school.  You know, we affected the economy in a good way. 

I think that what we‘re saying is, “Look, we‘re for laws that work, but we‘re against those laws that are broken and are not working.”  We do the rational thing the way America have always done to fix problems up and move on.  And the time has come for the undocumented migrants to be brought out of the shadows and to be fully incorporated into American life. 

CARLSON:  Well, I guess if you‘re not a citizen you don‘t really have much say in ours laws one way or the other, because you can‘t vote. 

What about, though, you mentioned children—kids not going to school.  I mean, that seems counterproductive at best.  Presumably, the children of immigrants, illegal immigrants, even, need more than the average person.  A lot of them can‘t speak English.  Take them out of school?

GUTIERREZ:  Well, look, I mean, we have to take dramatic action.  I mean, for the longest time we‘ve been sending our kids to school.  We‘ve been working.  We haven‘t been taken to the streets.  We‘ve been incredibly patient waiting for America to do the right thing, fix the broken immigration system.  That hasn‘t happened. 

So the workers got tired, you know.  They took a page from American history and decided to stand up and be counted.  I think the American people got the message. 

CARLSON:  I don‘t how much you know about American issues, Mr. Gutierrez, but I don‘t think you‘re going to find many examples of Americans using their children to make a political statement.  That does cross a line of decency in my opinion. 

But what about the question of English?  Your claim is that the vast majority of the illegal aliens want to be American.  And doubtless some do.  But in my pretty broad experience with this group at a rally in Washington not long ago, the majority don‘t speak English.  If they want to become Americans so badly, why don‘t they want to learn the language?

GUTIERREZ:  They‘re willing to do it.  I mean, and we want to do it.  And in fact, every time that we have been a part of a chance to try and learn English we do the best we can under the circumstances. 

Look, we love this country.  We want to be a part of it.  We‘re concerned about the national security issues that keep everybody awake sometimes.  I mean, this is a country that we‘ve chosen to embrace.  We want to be accepted.  We want to be brought into the mainstream.

CARLSON:  You have chosen to embrace.  There are many immigrants who chose to embrace this country.  I love immigrants.  I think most Americans do.  But those immigrants who don‘t learn after many years here the language, who continue to send large chunks of their paychecks to a foreign country, as many Latin American immigrants do, will go ahead and rewrite our national anthem in their language.  Where‘s the idea that they want to be part of this country?  That doesn‘t sound like assimilation to me at all. 

GUTIERREZ:  I think that they are celebrating what America stands for.  The political principles and what America is all about, the American dream.  And singing the national anthem in any language and not singing it at all, and remaining alienated from the message of that beautiful song, I would rather have them sing it in any other language.  And if anybody takes offense in America I can understand that.  But what‘s the big deal?

CARLSON:  I don‘t know.  It‘s kind of essential part of our culture, and the language is what allows the country to hold together as one country, a country of many religions and many cultures and many races, but held together by one language.  And if there is a large group of people who are consistently refusing to learn that language, you can see what you want.  But after awhile you‘re here 10 years and you don‘t speak the language, you‘re refusing.  OK.

GUTIERREZ:  No, no, no.  People are not refusing to learn.  People want to learn.  I mean, people understand that education is the key to having significant progress in this country. 

The thing is that they haven‘t been a part of the opportunity.  They work so hard.  They have no rights.  They‘ve been given—in fact, they‘re modern-day slaves. 

CARLSON:  Modern-day slaves.  Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.  What an insult.  Slow down.  To the descendants, the millions of descendants of real slaves who were brought here against their will.  These are people who snuck in the country, voluntarily, who are here to make money to profit from our economy.

Send that money back to Mexico or El Salvador or whatever, to call them slaves that‘s offensive to them and very offensive, speaking of American history, to Americans. 

GUTIERREZ:  Well, look, they had no rights.  They can‘t have a driver‘s license, you know.  They can‘t board a plane.  They can‘t board a bus.  They can‘t board a train.  They can‘t do anything, right?  I mean, they can‘t buy car insurance.  You know, they have to risk driving a car, because if they get stopped it gets taken away.  They might be turned over to immigration authorities, taken away from families.  I mean, what kind of a life is that?

CARLSON:  It sounds like a tough life.  That‘s why I‘m against it.  That‘s why I‘m against people coming here illegally, because they don‘t have the rights. 

GUTIERREZ:  But what about the ones here already?  What do you propose we do?

CARLSON:  I propose that they go back to their countries, just like normal immigrants do, and apply to come here and we decide whether they can or not.  That‘s my philosophy. 

Mr. Gutierrez, I‘m sorry to cut you short.  We are out of time.  I appreciate your coming on. 

GUTIERREZ:  Thank you. 

CARLSON:  Still to come, was today‘s Latino worker boycott a complete bust?  What would a day without illegal aliens really be like?  Order enforcing Congressman Tom Tancredo from Colorado stops by with his thoughts. 

Plus, Rush Limbaugh ordered to take random drug tests and forced to pay $30,000 as part of his plea agreement.  Was the prescription fraud charge against him, that charge, a fraud in itself?  We‘ll discuss that when we come back.


CARLSON:  Still ahead, did Condoleezza Rice break with the president and actually defend the Spanish version of our natural anthem?  Looks like she did.

Plus, Steven Colbert‘s flop at the White House Correspondents‘ Dinner got us thinking about our top five pitiful on-stage performances.  We‘ve got them.  We‘ll show it to you when we come back.


CARLSON:  Now to a story that has millions of Americans really bothered.  These nationwide rallies under the banner, A Day Without Immigrants.  The issue that has so many Americans outraged is not immigration.  It‘s illegal immigration. 

And my next guest points out a day without illegal immigrants might well be day of falling crime rates, lower taxes and more jobs for workers who are here legally. 

Joining me now, Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado.  He‘s an outspoken critic of illegal immigration and what he calls the cult of multiculturalism.  Congressman Tancredo joins us tonight from Washington.

Congressman, thanks for coming on. 


CARLSON:  An unknown number of illegal aliens have taken off to show.  The point, of course, is to show that America cannot function without them.  What‘s going to be the effect of this?

TANCREDO:  I think that these folks on our side of the equation, those folks who are really looking for true immigration reform are going to be bolstered by this. 

I wish this would happen in every city and state in the nation, because frankly, every time you look out there and you see it on TV, and you see the people, they‘re trying their best.  They got the memo that they shouldn‘t carry quite as many Mexican flags and Argentinean flags, but they‘re still doing it, the American flags upside down.  The—you know, changing “The Star-Spangled Banner” in Spanish. 

All this stuff does not help them.  They may think so.  It doesn‘t help them.  The most recent poll, 2-1, they‘re saying I don‘t like this, and I‘m certainly less inclined to support their cause.  So from my point of view, Tucker, I think they should keep it up. 

CARLSON:  I tend to agree.  What about the argument, though, and this is the argument that undergirds this whole event today, that America needs illegal aliens, illegal workers because they do jobs that Americans won‘t do?

TANCREDO:  Well, if—if they are right, then, of course, the entire economy should have come to a halt today, should it not?  I mean, if—one day without illegal immigrants, that‘s essentially what it was billed as.  Then all of a sudden it became just a boycott.  Then it was some sort of other protest.  I have no idea what this thing was supposed to be.  But to the extent that it was a day without illegal immigrants, let me tell you, we should be so lucky. 

CARLSON:  What does that mean?  I mean, President Bush and all—President Bush, conservative Republican, reputedly anyway, and all the way down, all illegal immigration...

TANCREDO:  Conservative?  Did I hear you say conservative?

CARLSON:  Well, I mean, that‘s how he‘s billed.  He‘s made the point and many others have made the point that the country couldn‘t function without them.  I mean, you say we should be so lucky.  What do you mean?

TANCREDO:  What I mean is, No. 1, if we actually did not have illegal aliens in this country, you would see all kinds of things that would be quite positive in terms of fewer people in our prison systems, fewer people accessing social services, fewer people, of course, having babies that the ob/gyn wards would be much less busy.  Emergency rooms would be mush less busy. 

The MS13, you know, most of the members of MS13, that violent gang, are illegal immigrants.  I mean, if you actually take them out of the equation for a single day, there are some positive aspects. 

Now I know what they‘re saying, is that hey, look, don‘t paint us all with that, and that most people here are hard-working—hard-working people.  They‘re neither citizens nor are they Americans.  But the reality is this.  We can survive this. 

Tucker, do you know this is something very few people really, I think, realize.  But we hear often about, for instance, the agricultural area.  And what would happen...

CARLSON:  Right.

TANCREDO:  ... to that industry if we all of a sudden just said no more illegal immigrants?

CARLSON:  Well, the argument is it would fold up and disappear.  It would go the way of the steel industry or the shoe manufacturing sector. 

TANCREDO:  However, do you know that today this minute, as we sit here, and has been the case now for years, H2A, that‘s the immigrant visa, by the way, that allows people coming to this person and work in the agricultural industry.  H2A, it‘s unlimited.  There are no caps.  There are no caps.  You can bring in as many as you want. 

My point is this, that if, in fact, this need is—arises we can fill it in the agricultural area in particular.  But the reality is, that American business, American—our economy is dynamic.  It would change and reflect a lot of things, including it would have to reflect a higher wage rate for a lot of people. 

It is true that wages would have to go up in certain industries.  And what‘s wrong with that?

CARLSON:  Right.  Americans would do the jobs if they got higher pay for doing it.  Finally, just sum up for me what you mean by the cult of multiculturalism.  It‘s a phrase you use in your new book and I‘m wondering what you mean by it?

TANCREDO:  OK.  I don‘t know how much time we have to discuss this, but... 

CARLSON:  Sum it up for me. 

TANCREDO:  OK.  The cult of multiculturalism is—it‘s really a group of people that, I think, started in the late 1960‘s.  These were the professors and the colleges that were pushing this idea of relativism, cultural relativism.

And it got to the point, however, where it is—I‘ll give you a face to put with the cult of multiculturalism, Ward Churchill—and a name, I should say.  If you know Ward Churchill in Colorado and you know what he‘s talking about, this guy is the epitome of a member of the cult of multiculturalism.  They hate America. 

It‘s not just the idea of wanting to—to express a desire to see other people‘s cultures, you know, exhibited and enjoy.  That‘s not it at all. 

CARLSON:  It‘s a loathing of our culture. 

TANCREDO:  It‘s a desire to hate America.  It‘s to put us down in order to make sure that everybody else knows that you are not biased.  But I‘m telling you, it is destructive to America. 

We need to see—America has done a lot of things wrong.  It‘s true.  Western civilization has had problems.  But I guarantee you that, if you only focus on them in school, the media...

CARLSON:  Right. 

TANCREDO:  That you provide a distorted picture of who we are. 

CARLSON:  And compare western civilization to any other civilization, and see how it rates.  Pretty well, I would say.  Congressman Tom Tancredo. 

TANCREDO:  Open the gates anywhere in the world, Tucker.  Anywhere in the world.  Which way do people flee?  They flee to the west. 

CARLSON:  Hence, today‘s events.  Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, thanks a lot for joining us. 

TANCREDO:  A pleasure, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Still ahead, the New Black Panther Party rallies in Durham and demands the conviction of the two accused lacrosse players.  Who let these guys on campus anyway?  And should the D.A. even be allowed to continue prosecuting this case?  We‘ll answer those questions when THE SITUATION returns. 


CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

There was yet more controversy in Durham, North Carolina.  At the entrance gates to Duke‘s campus, a group calling themselves the New Black Panthers joined the community leaders to protest in support of the accuser in the rape case there. 

The group demanded that the two players charged with rape and kidnapping, Colin Finnerty and Read Seligmann, be tried and convicted, even before the evidence has been presented. 

Meanwhile, Seligmann‘s attorneys filed a legal motion asking for D.A. Mike Nifong to be thrown off the case.  Here to discuss these developments, prosecutor Wendy Murphy joining us tonight from Boston. 

Welcome, Wendy.


CARLSON:  OK, so here‘s the measure, OK?  The election tomorrow in Durham for the district attorney is taking place.  Nifong is up.  He may win.  He could be beaten by Freda Black.  One hopes; we‘re praying.  If he is, though, beaten, you will concede this case is likely to be dropped.  Isn‘t that the evidence you need or any American would need to determine this is motivated by animus?  This is one man‘s white whale?

MURPHY:  First of all, the case is not going to be dropped just because he loses the election.  I think if the case is going to be dropped, let‘s hope it‘s because of evidence and not because a certain number of votes or popularity. 

That‘s been the problem in the case from day one.  It‘s always in the media about who we like the best, who‘s the cutest, who‘s the most politically influential.  And that‘s what bugs me the most about every high-profile rape case.  It‘s not about justice.  It‘s about who we like better.  A lot of people don‘t like poor, black strippers.  And that‘s why I defend her as hard as I do.  She needs it. 

CARLSON:  But don‘t you think—wait.  Isn‘t it sort of, with all due respect, foolish to defend or indict, rhetorically indict, anyone because of his or her demographic?  Rich, white lacrosse player?  Poor black stripper?  Who cares?  It‘s a question of evidence.  Did he or she do it?  Did he or she not do it?

Maybe Reade Seligmann do it and maybe not.

MURPHY:  Tucker—Tucker, they were not rhetorically indicted.  They were really indicted by a grand jury. 

CARLSON:  On your part, you‘re saying—you‘re defending this woman because of her background and her color.  I‘m saying...

MURPHY:  NO, no, no.  I will tell you what.  No, I said I‘m sick of the popularity contest approach to high-profile rape cases.  And that‘s why I‘m noisy for her.  She needs a thumb on the scale.

But no, look.  The bottom line is, the reason people are angry is because there is a disproportionate thumb on the scale for defense attorneys in every criminal case. 

They talk nonsense into the public trust.  The media, like a bunch of dumb dogs, runs with it and prints outright lies.  Whether it‘s true or not, it destroys a human being, victim or not.  No one cares.  They just print it.  Like in the Kobe Bryant case, you know, she had sex with three men in three days.  Big fat lie that was.  It destroyed her reputation. 

CARLSON:  I didn‘t even know that.

MURPHY:  Absolutely a lie. 

CARLSON:  This is the first rape case I‘ve ever really taken an interest in. 

MURPHY:  I will make a point about it, please. 


MURPHY:  I‘m serious.  Because that was a lie, Tucker.  Everyone knows now it was a lie.  But when her lawyer tried to say publicly that‘s a lie and the public shouldn‘t believe it, he was hauled into court, threatened with contempt.  The judge said, “I‘m going to throw you in jail if you say another word.

CARLSON:  I will concede everything you‘re saying. 

MURPHY:  Defense attorneys lie with impunity.  Victim lawyers cannot say a word. 

CARLSON:  That may be true.  I have no doubt that women have been, you know, maligned when they accuse rape.  I‘m really talking not about all women, not about Kobe Bryant, but about Reade Seligmann and Colin Finnerty, the guys accused in this case. 

MURPHY:  And the lies in this case about the victim.  And people are angry about that. 

CARLSON:  Let‘s talk about some of the facts that these two guys have marshaled in their defense.  Reade Seligmann we saw release today on our air, MSNBC, photographs of him taken from an ATM machine that proved pretty conclusively—OK, conclusively—that he couldn‘t have been there when the rape took place. 

MURPHY:  No.  Wrong, wrong. 

CARLSON:  Right.

MURPHY:  Wrong, no.  Because the ATM puts him, assuming you buy that timeline, the ATM...

CARLSON:  Was the ATM lying to?

MURPHY:  ... put him there—put him there well after she would have been raped, period.  He had plenty of time to rape her.  Why don‘t we talk instead about the report in “TIME” magazine...

CARLSON:  Wait a second.  That‘s simply not true. 

MURPHY:  Let‘s talk about the “TIME” magazine report that tells us some of the photographs that you‘ve been talking about as proving how he couldn‘t possibly have been there and how she was fine.  And all the photographs showing how really fine she was when she left scene were doctored, where the date stamp was actually fraudulent.  Let‘s talk about that evidence. 

CARLSON:  Let‘s—I hate to inject facts into your outrage here, Wendy. 

MURPHY:  “TIME” magazine.  “TIME” magazine.

CARLSON:  But these new photographs essentially demolish that theory.  There was—the allegation this morning, you can tamper with the date stamp on a cell phone or on a photo.  You can‘t tamper with the date stamp on an ATM.

MURPHY:  I‘m not bickering with it.  I‘m saying that still gave him plenty of time to do what she said he did. 

CARLSON:  Really?

MURPHY:  Period. 

CARLSON:  He was on his cell phone.

MURPHY:  Why make a big scene about it?  He could have been there in time to rape her and then gotten to the ATM.  Didn‘t protect the guy who said if there‘s two...

CARLSON:  Answer this question. 

MURPHY:  It‘s two minutes away, Tucker.  The ATM was two minutes away from the house. 

CARLSON:  Do you think it was likely that he was on the phone with his girlfriend while he was raping this woman?  Probably not very likely.  Yet Verizon says he was on his cell phone literally at the time she said—at the only time she could have been raped, according to a timeline I think everybody agrees on. 

MURPHY:  You‘re buying into the timeline argument. 

CARLSON:  I‘m not buying it.  Just...

MURPHY:  You don‘t know exactly what the window of opportunity was. 

CARLSON:  Sounds like a conspiracy worthy of the Kennedy assassination (ph).

MURPHY:  O.J.—No, O.J. Simpson said the timeline proved he couldn‘t have done it, too.  Did you buy that one, Tucker?  Because according to his timeline, boy that proves he‘s innocent. 

CARLSON:  O.J., fortunately, no longer on trial.  These guys, at least one of the, this Seligmann kid, he‘s innocent.  And I do think...

MURPHY:  Why don‘t you answer me this about this phone calls.  What was he doing, hysterically calling the taxi three or four times in the matter of three or four minutes?  What was that all about?  What was he afraid of?  What was he running from, Tucker?  Why don‘t you ask that question?

CARLSON:  OK.  OK.  Maybe we will on a future show.  Wendy Murphy, I‘m just preparing you for your long, groveling, tearful apology to Reade Seligmann.  And I know it‘s coming.  I‘m just kind of preparing the nest for you. 

MURPHY:  I don‘t need the help, thanks. 

CARLSON:  Wendy Murphy, from Boston.  We‘re here to help, Wendy.  Thank you. 

Still to come, President Bush, believe it or not, delivers a pretty good performance at the White House Correspondents‘ Dinner.  Too bad the same cannot be said for comedian Steven Colbert, who just ate it.  We‘ll bring you our top five public meltdowns, next. 

Plus, violent video games get a bad rap to begin with, but this new online game has border patrol agents killing illegal aliens.  How offensive is that?  Pretty offensive.  We‘ll debate it when we come back.


CARLSON:  Still to come, Rush Limbaugh, you may not like him, but so what?  Why is the government poking around his medicine cabinet?

Plus, ever wonder what it‘s like to choke in public?  Stick around for our top five.  But first, here‘s what else is going on in the world tonight.



RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  There was no arrest.  There was no new charge, no new case.  Case closed, the story is over.  I won.  Operative words, not guilty.  Thanks to all of you for sticking by me and hanging in. 


CARLSON:  That was Rush Limbaugh celebrating the dismissal of a prescription drug fraud charge against him this afternoon.  In an agreement reached today, Limbaugh will have to submit to random drug tests for 18 months and continue drug treatment.  Among other things, he also loses his right to have a gun.  In exchange, he will not have to admit guilt to the charge he obtained the prescription drugs illegally. 

So why was Limbaugh targeted and dragged through the mud for a personal problem in the first place?  Here to help us answer that question, Air America radio host, our pal, Rachel Maddow. 

Rachel, welcome. 

RACHEL MADDOW, AIR AMERICA RADIO HOST:  He was lying, even in that little clip.  He did get arrested.  He got around it.

CARLSON:  If Barbra Streisand were arrested for having a pill problem by some right-wing D.A. in Los Angeles, I would say, you know, that‘s terrible.  I don‘t care for Barbra Streisand or her views.    

But you know, she didn‘t hurt anybody.  She didn‘t rob anybody.  She bought them from a doctor, from middlemen.  She‘s not making America a worse place.  She‘s got problems.  Why the hell are we arresting her?  That‘s how I—and that‘s how I feel now.  And why aren‘t liberal jumping up on principle to defend Rush Limbaugh?

MADDOW:  Do you think that it should not be illegal to take 4,000 oxycotin pills shopping for different doctors?

CARLSON:  We don‘t know that, exactly how many. 

MADDOW:  OK.  Do you think it should be illegal?

CARLSON:  About 4,000.  Yes, I think it should probably be illegal, I guess.


CARLSON:  But you know, a lot of things are illegal, and most of them aren‘t prosecuted.  Only some are.  And it‘s—as you know, it‘s very rare for a prosecutor to go after the person taking the drugs.  It‘s almost always the person selling the drugs that gets busted, the doctor or the middlemen. 

He was only gone after because he‘s a right-wing radio show host.  You know that.  And that‘s the scariest thing there is, selective prosecution. 

MADDOW:  I don‘t think so at all.  I see this as totally the opposite thing. 

CARLSON:  Are you serious?

MADDOW:  I mean, what happened to Rush Limbaugh here?  He‘s paying a fine.  He‘s not going to do any jail time.  He was arrested for about five minutes.  He has to promise to stay clean, basically, and keep going to treatment.  Nothing happened. 

CARLSON:  Nothing?  He spent millions on legal bills.  You‘ve got to be kidding me. 

MADDOW:  That‘s right.  And his lawyer is worth his weight in heroin.  At this point, this is a great American story...

CARLSON:  No, no.  What did he do wrong?  What did he do wrong?

MADDOW:  Well, what his medical records show when they subpoenaed his medical records...

CARLSON:  Jesus, that‘s just disgusting.  They suspended his medical records.  I‘m not even a Limbaugh fan but it just bugs me. 

MADDOW:  OK, well, they did subpoena his medical records.  And what did they show?  That he got thousands of oxycotin pills from different doctors. 

The evidence from his housekeeper, which you may agree with or disagree with, shows he got on the order of tens of thousands of pills in less than a year. 

CARLSON:  OK.  Do you think there‘s something a little scary about the state talking to somebody‘s housekeeper about his personal habits?  Don‘t you see that creepy authoritarianism in that?  Doesn‘t it bother you as a liberal?

MADDOW:  The thing that bothers me is selective prosecution and whether or not people can get off for something because they have a great lawyer.  It‘s one thing whether or not you agree there be drug laws, but if there are drug laws do you get off easily because you‘re Rush Limbaugh?  You get selectively prosecuted because you‘re Rush Limbaugh?

CARLSON:  I‘m sorry.  I know something about this subject, about prosecution—prosecutions in drug cases.  And I can tell you that if Rush Limbaugh were some middle-class housewife or middle class accountant or some poor person he would not be prosecuted at all for this. 

MADDOW:  That‘s incredible.

CARLSON:  No, that is totally...

MADDOW:  If there is evidence that we‘re talking about tens of thousands of oxycontin pills, if that is what we‘re talking about...


MADDOW:  ... anybody who wasn‘t Rush Limbaugh would be looking at a battering ram in trafficking charges. 

CARLSON:  That‘s not...

MADDOW: The weight of opiates we‘re talking about...

CARLSON:  If—if he were trafficking, I‘ll tell you who would have been busted is the housekeeper and her convicted felon drug-trafficker husband, both of whom got immunity in this case, because they‘re willing to testify on someone who is famous and unpopular. 

MADDOW:  Or testify to the person they were giving the drugs to.

CARLSON:  The liberals are always getting up there, and this is one thing I like about liberals, and they‘re saying, “You know what?  Drug addicts have a problem.  They‘re addicted to drugs.  They‘re destroying their own lives.  Kind of back off and don‘t bother them so much.”  Where the hell are those liberals now?

MADDOW:  If you want to have a debate about whether or not it should be illegal to doctor-shop and gets tons of oxycontin in Florida.  If you want to have a debate about whether or not the drug laws are right, I‘ll have that debate with you. 

But the question of whether or not Rush Limbaugh was selectively targeted and got nailed here in a way he wouldn‘t have if he wasn‘t a right-winger is ridiculous.  He‘s getting off with nothing when there was so much evidence against him.  This is a case of great American lawyering. 

CARLSON:  I‘m telling you he wouldn‘t have been prosecuted in the first place, but I am saying this is a perfect example for liberals to stand up.  Most liberals aren‘t standing on principle, I guess, is the point I‘m making. 

Where‘s all the—I‘m dead serious.  Where is the ACLU?  Where is all the—the course of the anti-drug people, and I‘m on their side, the anti-drug law people, because I actually don‘t like drug laws that much. 

MADDOW:  Fair enough.

CARLSON:  But why aren‘t they standing up for Rush Limbaugh?  They‘re not standing up for him because they think he‘s a right-wing creep.  That‘s why.

MADDOW:  I‘m not standing up for him because I think that he got off easy because he‘s Rush Limbaugh. 

And the reason—the other thing—the other thing else in the living room here, is that this is one of these great cases of American hypocrisy.  This is like Jimmy Swaggart and the hookers.  This is like Jim Bakker and... 

CARLSON:  Don‘t you feel sorry for him?  He‘s addicted to drugs.

MADDOW:  No, I don‘t feel sorry for him that he‘s addicted to drugs.  I mean, I feel that you know what?  If he‘s addicted to drugs, he ought to get help for his problem.  I wish Jeb Bush had not cut all the rehab funding in Florida.  It would probably help his own family, too. 

But Rush Limbaugh in this case...

CARLSON:  Wow, that‘s mean, I have to say.  It‘s mean to say that about Jeb Bush. 

MADDOW:  Why is it mean to say that we shouldn‘t cut rehab funding?

CARLSON:  Because his daughter is a drug addict.  I think it‘s an awful thing to...

MADDOW:  This is a great case of American hypocrisy.  The bigger a blow hard you are, the harder you fall. 

CARLSON:  Boy, I just don‘t feel that way at all.  I just don‘t feel that way at all.

MADDOW:  Well, then you don‘t say anything nasty about Rosie O‘Donnell from here on out and Barbra Streisand.  And I won‘t say nasty things about Rush Limbaugh.

CARLSON:  No, if they get addicted to drugs, I don‘t think they should go to jail for it.  And I don‘t think your average crackhead ought to go to jail for it, either.  I really don‘t.  I feel sorry for them.

MADDOW:  Drug legalization I‘m with you.  Rush Limbaugh getting off easy, I‘m not. 

CARLSON:  All right.  Rachel Maddow, thank you.

MADDOW:  Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON:  There‘s an old showbiz axiom that dying is easy; comedy is hard.  This past weekend, Comedy Central‘s Steven Colbert learned what it‘s like to die while attempting comedy. 


STEVEN COLBERT, HOST, COMEDY CENTRAL‘S “THE COLBERT REPORT”:  I stand by this man.  I stand by this man because he stands for things.  Not only for things; he stands on things.  Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently-flood city squares.  And that sends a strong message that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world. 


CARLSON:  Colbert was the hired entertainment at Saturday night‘s White House Correspondents‘ Dinner and entertain, he did not.  His extremely long routine left even the many liberals in the room silent and shifting in the seats.  I know, because I was sitting next to some of them. 

The president and his wife, not surprisingly, seemed especially unimpressed. 

Colbert‘s White House bomb earns him a well-deserve place in the devious hallowed halls of embarrassing public flops, and that is the focus of tonight‘s top five. 


CARLSON (voice-over):  The great ones make it look so easy.  But you‘re about to see why public appearances are best left to the professionals.  Bombs away.

Wannabe pop sensation Ashlee Simpson may never live down her Milli Vanilli moment on “Saturday Night Live” two years ago. 

ASHLEE SIMPSON, SINGER:  On a Monday, I am waiting. 

CARLSON:  A truly embarrassing lip-synching feeling.  But the gig was off when a humiliated Ashlee scurried off-stage.  She later blamed the mic malfunction on her band.  Of yes, and a bad case of heartburn. 

JUDE LAW, ACTOR:  What can I say?  Life‘s a “b”.

SIMPSON:  Exactly.  I feel so bad.

CARLSON:  A 2004 national spelling bee took a strange twist when this young contestant stumbled on the word “alopecoid.”  Can you spell light-headed?

Now, don‘t everyone rush to his aid.  Thirteen-year-old Akshay Buddiga eventually picked himself off the ground and scored second place. 

Comedian Roseanne lowered the bar when she failed to “so proudly hail” the “Star-Spangled Banner” before a baseball game in 1990. 

ROSEANNE BARR, COMEDIAN (singing):  The land of the free...

CARLSON:  Then Roseanne spat and grabbed her crotch, ensuring that deaf people were equally offended by her routine. 



CARLSON:  Who can forget the 2004 American Nusic Award performance that left us wondering what did Anna Nicole snort before coming out on stage? 

SMITH:  And if I ever record an album, I want this guy to produce mine.  Make me a beautiful dress.

CARLSON:  Finally, a cautionary tale about the dangers of partying into the wee hours of the night and then appearing on a live morning show. 


CARLSON:  Talk about a rude wakeup call. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  We‘re going to take a commercial break.


CARLSON:  We‘re going to take a commercial break.  Good recovery. 

On CBS yesterday morning, the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, was asked how she feels about the new Spanish version of “The Star-Spangled Banner”. 

Well, she said, it‘s just another example of the, quote, “individualization of the American national anthem,” whatever the hell that means. 

“From my point of view,” Rice went on, “people are expressing themselves as wanting to be Americans, and that‘s a good thing.” 

People expressing themselves as wanting to be Americans.  If only that‘s what the Spanish language anthem was all about.  The people who want to be Americans come here legally.  They obey the law.  They learn English.  They teach it to their kids.  They sing “The Star-Spangled Banner” in English.

People who come here simply to profit from our superior economy don‘t bother with formalities like green cards.  They just sneaked in.  They send most of their money back to their home countries.  They don‘t assimilate.  They don‘t study the language or embrace the culture.  Instead of bothering to learn the national anthem, they write their own Spanish version. 

That‘s the difference between immigrants and illegals.  Even Condi Rice ought to know that. 

Coming up on THE SITUATION, there are money matters with the odd couple of Rosie O‘Donnell and Anna Nicole Smith.  We‘ll tell you who‘s getting screwed and who can now purchase a small Central American nation and probable will, when THE SITUATION rolls on. 


VANESSA MCDONALD, PRODUCER:  Coming up, a new video game where the goal to shoot as many illegal immigrants as you can.  Plus, an important update on the spanking lawsuit story. 

CARLSON:  Wait until you hear how much a spanking costs these days.  All your spanking news on THE SITUATION.  We‘ll be right back.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  We turn now to a man who attempted to declare himself an illegal immigrant today just so he wouldn‘t have to come to work.  It didn‘t work, though.  He‘s the outsider, ESPN Radio and HBO Boxing host Max Kellerman. 

MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO:  No habla English. 

CARLSON:  It doesn‘t work, Max.  A man who grew up in lower Fifth Avenue.  He just can‘t get away from it. 

There are some pretty offensive video games on the market these days, but this one might take the cake.  It‘s called Border Patrol.  It‘s a game where the goal is to shoot as many illegal immigrants as you can before they cross the Mexican border.  It‘s been on the Internet for a couple of years, but it‘s gained popularity lately. 

The game‘s opening screen says there is one simple rule: quote, “Keep out at any cost.”  The game is obviously disgusting.

Max, I don‘t envy your having to defend it here tonight.  Let me just say there are a lot of reasons, you know, to think this is repulsive.  The obvious: it is repulsive. 

But it also creates the illusion, and it‘s a false one, that most Americans are intolerant haters.  I think people who are against illegal immigrations by and large have principled reasons for opposing it, and this suggests they don‘t. 

KELLERMAN:  Maybe they do, maybe they don‘t.  Who knows where the motivation‘s coming from.  I will—I will hear defend it.  And obviously, I don‘t like being on the side of white supremacists, as I do this, but I‘ll play devil‘s advocate. 

You know, there are two—I mean, this is so offensive, it‘s actually comical.  It‘s one of those things where you see it‘s so offensive it almost makes you laugh, like you can‘t believe it exists. 

But there are two ways in which violence is acceptable in entertainment.  One, the Dirty Harry movies with Clint Eastwood. 

CARLSON:  Right.

KELLERMAN:  It‘s violence done in the name of good.  Some wrong has been committed and now there will be violence to right it. 

Two, a film like the Hughes brothers, “Menace to Society”.  Here is violence, and the message is violence is bad.  If you use violence for the good, or if the message is violence is bad, it‘s OK. 

But the point is, those violent films actually exist.  There‘s a demand for them commercially because people just want to see violence.  I know plenty of people who went to see “Menace to Society” or “Dirty Harry” and they did not come away with the moral violence is bad or use it for the good.  They, “Did you see that guy get blown away?”

CARLSON:  Right.

KELLERMAN:  And so it‘s really violence for the sake of violence.  And so what‘s the difference?

CARLSON:  So—but your point is that this video game, because it‘s so repellent, might actually make people more compassionate and nonviolent?

KELLERMAN:  Well, that‘s a very good point.  You just made it.  I agree with it.  Yes, it‘s so—it can startle you into realizing how bad the idea is. 

But, really, it‘s the way that violence is used.  Are you going to sanction certain kinds of violent images because you agree or disagree with their messages? 

CARLSON:  Right.  See, the problem is I‘m not for sanctioning almost any images, actually.  But the problem with this game is it‘s going to be held up by every left-wing pro-illegal immigration person as an example of how America‘s intolerant.

And the next thing you know, by the time my kids are in high school they‘re going to be taking classes in, you know, how to be sensitive to illegal immigrants. 

KELLERMAN:  I‘ve got to say that...

CARLSON:  And it‘s going to happen, actually.  I‘m sort of joking but I know that is going to happen. 

KELLERMAN:  You know, I‘ve got to say again the whole illegal immigrant issue, I think there‘s a real difference between people breaking the rules to join up for something and then never breaking the rules again.

CARLSON:  Right.

KELLERMAN:  ... because they want to be a part of something so bad and people who are involved in something and then continually break the rules. 

But as I understand it, again, post-9/11 it‘s a little bit—I mean, what are we really scared about with our borders, Tucker? That people are taking away jobs or that a terrorist is going to come in?  What‘s the immediate threat?

CARLSON:  The latter.  But I think the former is actually significant, too, actually.  So but that‘s a whole other conversation.  We should have that tomorrow night. 

Max Kellerman, thank you. 

KELLERMAN:  Thank you.

CARLSON:  Still ahead, Anna Nicole Smith won over a dying billionaire with her pill-popping charm.  But could she convince the United States Supreme Court to hand her a huge piece of his estate?  The answer, of course, lies on “The Cutting Room Floor.”


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Time for “The Cutting Room Floor.”  You know what that means: the newly-tanned Willie. 


CARLSON:  Yes, the newly tanned.

GEIST:  You wouldn‘t believe what the home-tanning bed does.  It‘s amazing.  It works wonders.

Quick breaking news.  Keith Richard, as you know, hospitalized over the weekend in New Zealand, falling out of a coconut tree—we‘ve all been there—has now been released from the hospital.  He‘s on the mend.  That guy is like Rasputin.  Forty years of heroin and woman, falling out of coconut trees, he will not die. 

CARLSON:  Like Rasputin.  The reference, very...

GEIST:  Will not die.

CARLSON:  He goes to the hospital. 

We start with an update on a ridiculous story more that‘s become more ridiculous since we brought it to you last week.  The woman who sued for $1.2 million because she was playfully spanked at work won her case.  But she didn‘t get the $1.2 million she was hoping for: she got more. 

A Florida jury awarded Janet Orlando a total of $1.7 million for the trauma she served from being spanked during a company team-building exercise. 

GEIST:  All right, Tucker, I don‘t want you to read anything into this or get too excited, but would you spank me here in the workplace?

CARLSON:  If you‘ll split it with me I probably would. 

GEIST:  I want some beach-front property, and the $1.7 million is handy. 

CARLSON:  That actually violates everything I hold sacred, but I would do it. 

GEIST:  Just spank me.  I want to super the dickens out of you. 

CARLSON:  I‘d be worried you wouldn‘t sue.  That‘s what concerns me. 

The spanking woman‘s good day in court is nothing next to the day Anna Nicole Smith had.  The Supreme Court—yes, that‘s right, the U.S. Supreme Court—unanimously revived Anna Nicole‘s claim to nearly $500 million of her late husband‘s estate. 

You‘ll remember the former stripper married an 88-year-old billionaire in 1994.  He died within a year.  The man‘s family is disputing her claims to any part of what he left. 

GEIST:  From the body that brought us Plessey v. Ferguson, Brown v. The Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, we have stripper with a reality show v. family of 89-year-old billionaire husband. 

I don‘t think—this should not have risen to this level.  By the way, Anna Nicole Smith with $500 million is a dangerous thing. 

CARLSON:  She‘d have some pampered poodles at that point. 

Rosie O‘Donnell‘s best new contract with “The View” at ABC reportedly comes with some conditions.  The first condition, you‘re going to make $5 million less than your predecessor.  Sources say Rosie will be paid $2 million a year.  That‘s chump change next to $7 million Meredith Vieira made.

The second condition, Rosie can‘t cut her hair.  Probably a pretty good idea given her history of hair style choices. 

GEIST:  Tucker, you spoke of the history of hairstyle.  If I could just remind our viewers what happens when Rosie gets control of her own hair.  There it is.  When you‘re considering a hair style, you never want to go for the two weeks removed from a lobotomy look, I don‘t think.  That‘s not—that was not a good look.  I‘m just glad there‘s something in writing that prohibits that. 

CARLSON:  That is definitely a head injury.  I know, I know.  Thanks for reminding us.

GEIST:  Sure, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Willie Geist.  Thank you.

That‘s it for us.  See you tomorrow night.



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.