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

'Scarborough Country' for June 5

Read the transcript to the Monday show

Guests: David Hans Schmidt, Yale Galanter

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST:  Right now in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, the debate over illegal immigration rages, as the president‘s own successor in Texas blasts the White House for border insecurity with Mexico.  He‘s asking, Why can‘t D.C. stop the invasion?  And Bush bringing it all back home to his Christian base.  From gay marriage to flag burning, will the faithful flock return to the president or see it as crass politics?  And caught on tape?  First Pam Anderson, then Paris Hilton, now O.J. Simpson?  God, we hope not!  But the O.J. sex tapes are for sale, and we have the purveyor of porn here to explain why, along with O.J.‘s lawyer, who denies, denies and denies.

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

We‘re going to have all those stories in just a minute, plus an undercover investigation on car rip-offs you‘re not going to want to miss.

But first, with Washington stalled on how to stop the massive flow of illegal immigrants over the U.S. border, Texas governor Rick Perry and other border governors have decided, well, they‘re just going to take matters into their own hands.  The Texas governor is angry at the daughter for slashing his budget to protect border security by 30 percent.


GOV. RICK PERRY ®, TEXAS:  This funding disparity, combined with continued federal inaction, jeopardizes our security, and it reinforces my belief that Texas must never wait for Washington to act.


SCARBOROUGH:  And that‘s the Republican guy, again, the governor, who replaced George W. Bush.

Now, while national Guard troops are moving to the U.S./Mexican border, stunning new statistics are showing the massive scale of an ongoing invasion of illegal immigrants from Mexico.  “The San Francisco Chronicle” is reporting today that 10 percent of Mexico‘s population is now living in the United States of America, and one out of seven Mexican workers are migrating to our country.

Today, more concerns that along with workers are coming drug dealers, gang members, convicted felons, and quite possibly terrorists.  And yet Washington politicians are cutting the budget for Texas to patrol its border with Mexico.  Maybe that‘s one reason why the Texas governor is now spending $5 million on video surveillance cameras to do the job he says Washington politicians are refusing to do.  The cameras are going to be placed along the border.  They‘re going to stream images to the Internet, and they‘re going to allow you and every other American across this country to view the video feeds and report possible illegal crossings.  Think of it as virtual Minutemen without the pup tents.

But what does it mean to the president‘s successor, and what does it mean to the president that his successor has more confidence in Radio Shack cameras than the commander-in-chief when it comes to protecting America‘s southern border?  That‘s scary, isn‘t it?

Well, Sara Carter‘s with us.  She‘s an investigative reporter who‘s been reporting on the border wars for some time now, and she joins us live.  Sara, these border state governors are now taking matters into their own hands.  Is it mainly because they just don‘t trust Washington politicians anymore to protect them, to protect their states, to protect their residents along the border and to get the job done?

SARA CARTER, “INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN”:  Yes.  It‘s not just the governors, it‘s the people of the states who don‘t trust the federal government anymore.  It‘s the ranchers that have their homes along the Mexico/U.S. border.  It‘s the law enforcement officials, who‘ve been begging for years for somebody to come in and do something to stop this.

You know, Joe, I go down to the border quite often, and what I see is unbelievable—I mean, drug traffickers.  In Nuevo Laredo, more than 104 people have been killed there since January.  It‘s not just migrants.  Human smugglers are abusing these migrants that are coming across the border to the point where ranchers are finding dead bodies on their ranches.  And it‘s—it‘s out of control.  And now...


SCARBOROUGH:  And Sara, I understand—you talk about these ranchers.  I understand that they‘re actually some of the people that are going to have these cameras put on their property to try to protect their region because—they don‘t want to put it on federal property because then the feds can screw around with it.  But the governor of Texas is going to spend state money to put these cameras on private property because these ranchers and other people across the border fear for their lives, right?

CARTER:  That‘s it.  Absolutely.  They‘re going to be in undisclosed locations along the border.  They‘re going to be on private property, and they‘re going to be monitoring the border 24/7.  And the rest of the nation can just log on to a Web site and watch the border with them.  And this is what it‘s come to.  It‘s...



SCARBOROUGH:  ... down there that that‘s what it has come to, that the governors—the governors don‘t trust the president.  They don‘t trust Republicans.  They don‘t trust Democrats.  They don‘t trust anybody in Washington, D.C., to take care of this problem that starts as their problem but ends up as our problem.  So if that‘s the case, how angry are these people in Texas, in Arizona, in New Mexico and California, who believe they‘ve been abandoned by the feds?

CARTER:  Wow.  They are very angry.  I mean, I contacted some of the sheriffs today—and now, remember, we reported this on your show earlier in the year.  A lot of the sheriffs were threatened by narcotics traffickers when there was an incursion in Huspeth (ph) County.  The narcotics traffickers actually walked onto their property, to their families, and told them that if they went near the Rio Grande again that they would kidnap their children, that they would kill them.  I mean, the threats were real.

And so it‘s unbelievable to them that the federal government wouldn‘t want to do anything.  This is a real national security issue, and many of them, border patrol agents, FBI, Drug Enforcement agents, along with the sheriffs and along with the ranchers that live in the area, have been saying for years this is a serious national security issue.  The border is wide open.  And there‘s a possibility that terrorists could be using the border, as well.  So...



SCARBOROUGH:  It is.  It is a situation that‘s gotten completely out of control, “Time”  magazine reporting almost a year ago that terrorists were looking to stream across the U.S./Mexican border to infiltrate the central United States and launch terror attacks there.

Sara, stay with us.  In a minute, we want to get back to you.  And we‘re going to also be talking to Pat Buchanan, MSNBC political analyst, and Juan Hernandez.  He‘s a former adviser to Mexican president Vicente Fox.

But first, my interview with governor and rumored presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.  I asked the Arkansas governor if the feds‘ inaction was forcing states like his to take matters into its own hands.


GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE ®, ARKANSAS:  Well, it‘d be a shame if states had to do what really is a federal responsibility.  Some states are having to take some actions that, really, they shouldn‘t have to.  I think the president‘s got at least moving us on the right course, and that‘s to try to come up with a tamper-proof ID, bring some real genuine security to the border, which is the number one priority, and then find a way to take care of the work force that we actually need in our economy.  But we need to know who‘s coming, why they‘re here, where they are when they get here.  And we need to make sure that they have a health card so that we know that they‘re not bringing some communicable disease.  And that doesn‘t matter whether they‘re coming across the southern, the northern border or from either shore.

SCARBOROUGH:  There were reports in Washington that you actually believed racism was driving the debate in the House of Representatives on this issue.  Is that true?

HUCKABEE:  That‘s totally untrue.  In fact, I was asked by reporters if I think some of the immigration anxiety was based on racism.  And I said, Well, most of it isn‘t.  And I want to be very clear.  I don‘t think anyone in Congress is a racist.  I just don‘t think that‘s driving them.  I think it‘s being driven by honest, sincere desires to secure our borders.

What I did say was that in my own experience, going to some town halls and being on radio stations where I take questions from callers, you can‘t escape the fact that there are some people out there that are driven by those passions.  But they‘re not the people making the decisions.  They‘re just the people sometimes—and only a small minority of them—who are making some phone calls and writing things on blogs, and most of them doing it anonymously because they don‘t want to be held accountable.

But in no way do I think that that‘s what‘s permeating the discussion in Congress.  What I do think you‘ve got is some very passionate people, some of whom are nervous about our border security.  And look, after what we‘ve seen in Canada this week, and three tons of fertilizer that could be used to blow up something, we need to not only be worried about the Mexican border but the Canadian border, as well.

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Governor Huckabee, thank you so much for being with us tonight.  We really appreciate it.

HUCKABEE:  Thank you, Joe.


SCARBOROUGH:  Now let‘s bring in MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan and Juan Hernandez.  He‘s a former adviser to Mexican president Vicente Fox and the author of “The New American Pioneers.”  Why are we afraid of Mexican immigrants, Juan?  Well, 40 million is one reason why I‘m scared, the White House saying we‘re going to have 40 million new Mexican immigrants in this country.  I don‘t think Mexico can sustain 40 million U.S. immigrants into their country over the next decade or two.  Also the fact that one in ten people that live in Mexico are now living in this country, one in seven workers from Mexico now in this country.

I mean, how can any country withstand that type of invasion?  And that‘s what it is, it is an invasion!

JUAN HERNANDEZ, FORMER ADVISER TO MEXICAN PRES. VICENTE FOX:  No, it‘s not an invasion.  I think that we have two areas here that we must cover.  On the one hand, we have to find the truth about all of this because so many people are discussing different topics.  I mean, some are saying, Well, they‘re all criminals.  Some are saying, Well, no, we need every single one of them.  We need to do some research and really find out, do we need these people or do we not need them?  I‘m on the side—and thank you for putting on the plug for my book.  But in the book, I present the information that proves, from my humble perspective, that we do need these people.  They‘re not invading...



SCARBOROUGH:  ... the White House has put out itself is that we‘re going to have 40 million new immigrants to this country from Mexico, most likely, over the next two decades, that despite the fact...


SCARBOROUGH:  Hold on a second.  That despite the fact that 77 percent of Americans say they want to either freeze or lower immigration levels.  I mean, the center cannot hold here!

HERNANDEZ:  But here we‘ve been knocking and knocking and knocking George Bush, knocking Congress.  What I say is let‘s force them to get to work.  Now, I heard Sara a minute ago say, well, people have been upset for over a year.  No, we‘ve been upset for 20 years!  Reagan passed amnesty—and by the way, that A-word is not an ugly word.  There‘s nothing wrong with amnesty 20 years ago.  That‘s not what we‘re asking for today.  But for 20 years, we‘ve been asking for a new program.  Now, it may be that we do need 40 million immigrants from now to 20 years.  Maybe we need 10 million.  Whatever is the right number for the United States, let‘s make sure we...

SCARBOROUGH:  Pat Buchanan...


SCARBOROUGH:  Juan said we may need that 40 million.

HERNANDEZ:  ... a little bit of compassion to it!

SCARBOROUGH:  But is 40 million—and 40 million, by the way, Pat, from what I understand, is a conservative estimate.  Some think tanks are saying that this plan passed by the Senate and that the White House support could actually bring 60 to 80 million new immigrants in this country over the next 10, 15, 20 years.  What impact will that have in America, on your future, my future, my children‘s future?

PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST:  Well, let‘s take a look at the numbers right now.  There are 36 million foreign-born in this country right now, which is almost equal to all the immigrants who came from any country between Jamestown and John F. Kennedy‘s election.  Twelve million of these are illegal, which as I mentioned the other day, is equal to all the Germans and Italians who ever came.  The melting pot is broken.  You bring 40 million people in here...

HERNANDEZ:  But Pat...

BUCHANAN:  This ain‘t going to be a country...


BUCHANAN:  Hold it, Juan!  You bring that many people in here, we‘re not going to be a country anymore, we‘re going to be a giant...


BUCHANAN:  ... boarding house for the world!  We‘re all getting older, Juan, but...

HERNANDEZ:  We‘re only growing at 1 percent!

BUCHANAN:  Juan, I would like to see a country handed down to future generations that is as good and as unified and cohesive as the one I grew up in!  And this invasion is killing that dream and killing that possibility!  And the responsible party, Joe, is the man charged with defending our borders!  For one third of 1 percent of GDP, $8 billion, you could build a 2,000-mile wall across our southern border and stop this invasion cold!

SCARBOROUGH:  Pat—Pat, if we wanted to stop these people from coming over to this country, you and I both know it could be done.  And despite the fact that 80 percent of Americans want to freeze immigration levels, this president, Senate leaders, leaders in the House of Representatives aren‘t willing to do what it takes.  Of course, they‘re all Republicans, but the Democrats are even more permissive on this issue.

BUCHANAN:  Well, sure.

SCARBOROUGH:  Pat Buchanan, why?

BUCHANAN:  Well, Democrats are permissive for a simple reason.  When these folks come here and eventually become citizens, they‘re going to sink the Republican Party forever.  Republican Party, even under Reagan, only got 44 percent of the Hispanic vote.  Since then, the Democrats get 60 to 75 percent of the Hispanic vote!

HERNANDEZ:  But they‘ve all been voting Republican!  We voted for George W. Bush...

BUCHANAN:  You did not!  George Bush...

HERNANDEZ:  ... and the Republicans can still win them over.

BUCHANAN:  George Bush got 40 percent of them.  But the point is, Joe, I don‘t care about the Republican Party.  I don‘t care about politics.  I do care about this country.


BUCHANAN:  You can‘t absorb—you cannot 40 to 6 million more people.  You‘re going to have a giant Kosovo in the Southwest, which de facto is going to succeed from this country!  If anybody any longer cares about our country, rather than an economy!

SCARBOROUGH:  All right...



HERNANDEZ:  We need to find the truth.  This is a political year.  You mention the governor, Rick Perry, and he—I consider my friend.  But he‘s running for governor this year, November.  Of course he‘s going to talk about closing the border.  What we need is the truth, and we need to add to it some compassion!

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Thank you.  We‘re going to have to leave it there.  Sara carter, Pat Buchanan, Juan Hernandez, greatly appreciate it.  I‘m all for compassion, but I‘m also for this country surviving.  I don‘t see how it survives 60 million immigrants over the next 20 years.

Coming up: A full-court press from the president on one of his core campaign issues, banning gay marriage, plus flag burning.  Is he pandering to the base?  And caught on tape, an undercover investigation you‘re not going to want to miss.  We‘ll be right back.


SCARBOROUGH:  The political news has been grim for George W. Bush.  With sagging poll numbers and upcoming midterm elections that could determine whether he makes history in Iraq or gets impeached, the president sent an SOS to his conservative Christian base today by calling on Congress to pass a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.  It‘s a move that proves election season has begun in earnest.


(voice-over):  Campaign season is upon us.  The opening shots were fired by President Bush.

GEORGE WALKER BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization, and it should not be redefined by activist judges.

SCARBOROUGH:  But the same George Bush told NBC weeks after his reelection he would no longer fight to ban gay marriage.

BUSH:  I just want people to understand that there‘s a mentality on the Hill that says the way things are fine now.

SCARBOROUGH:  America‘s most powerful political force in the evangelical movement let the president and the GOP know that his believers would not be played for fools.

JAMES DOBSON, FOUNDER, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY:  This president has two years, or more broadly, the Republican Party has two years to implement those policies, certainly four, or I believe they‘ll pay a price at the—in the next election.

SCARBOROUGH:  Democrats were predictably outraged.

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), DELAWARE:  We don‘t have enough vaccines.  We don‘t have enough police officers.  And we‘re going to debate the next three weeks, I‘m told, gay marriage, a flag amendment, and God only knows what else.  I can‘t believe the American people can‘t see through this.

SCARBOROUGH:  But if this past is prologue, the president‘s tack to the right will bring his base home and will prove that, at least on these issues, there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats.  Cynical or not, six states are planning initiatives banning gay marriage this fall.  Chances are good the measures will pass overwhelmingly, and Republican candidates will gain a political windfall from the debate, leaving not only gay and lesbian couples but also Democratic politicians waiting once again at the altar.


So is the president pandering on gay marriage and flag burning?  With

me now is Patrick Guerriero—he‘s president of the Log Cabin Republicans

and Republican strategist Jack Burkman.

Jack, it sure smells like political pandering to me.  Is that what the president is doing?

JACK BURKMAN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST:  Sure, but there‘s nothing wrong with pandering, if it‘s the right thing to do, Joe.  This is the right policy.  Look, George Bush is a moderate.  He has been dragged kicking and screaming into this.  The president feels that because of his youth, this is not the kind of issue he wants to get into, et cetera, et cetera.  He‘s never been a strong social conservative.  I‘m glad he‘s finally coming to the party.

But you know, all of these people—Joe Biden, I‘m sure my opponent tonight—they‘re going to make this argument that somehow terrorism and all of these issues—I would advance the bold pieces (ph) tonight, Joe.  And this is controversial.  But this issue and the moral fabric of the country is five times as important as the war on terror and the war in Iraq combined because as your book, “Rome Is Burning”—America will never be defeated in the field.  Just like the Roman legions, we will never fall in battle.  I mean, if Osama bin Laden thinks he can defeat the United States by knocking over buildings, he‘s crazy.  But where we will fall and where we are falling as a civilization is from within.  It‘s moral...

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, Patrick, let me—let just me talk about what Jack has said and what I hear in middle America.  There are a lot of people—you know the book, “What‘s the Matter With Kansas?”  Well, you may think one of the things that‘s the matter with Kansas is a lot of people in Kansas are more concerned about gay marriage than they are with what‘s happening in Iraq right now.  And it—it‘s that way in a lot of red states in America.  So why shouldn‘t the president make this move?

PATRICK GUERRIERO, PRESIDENT, LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS:  Give me a break.  The whole notion that Americans this morning woke up fearing some lesbian couple that‘s known each other for 15 years and wants to have a civil contract—they‘re are more fearful of that couple than they are of Osama bin Laden is a joke.  And it is basically moving the Republican Party to a set of issues that will divide the Republican Party, that will divide the American family, and that will fail to give the president a platform by which he can unite the American people...

SCARBOROUGH:  But you know, Patrick...

GUERRIERO:  ... on any issue.

SCARBOROUGH:  ... you and I can look back to what happened in 2004 in Missouri.  You can look at these—I mean, you and I both know that in all of these states, these ballot measures are going to pass overwhelmingly.  They always do.  So...

GUERRIERO:  And exactly.  The American people know that states will deal with this issue one by one.  Many states will have questions ballot questions...


SCARBOROUGH:  Hold on a second there, Jack.  Hold on a second...


SCARBOROUGH:  But Patrick, my point is this, that it seems that people in Washington and New York and California are always surprised by just how much middle America opposes gay marriage.

GUERRIERO:  But let‘s face it, if you go to the Republican National Committee Web site or you talk to any good Republicans in Washington, they‘ll tell you that about half of the most vulnerable Republicans in this election come from very centrist, independent-mined districts that don‘t like social extremism.  And this move to embrace this as the agenda going into 2006 may help in some conservative districts...

GUERRIERO:  Let me show you, Joe—let me give you an example...

BURKMAN:  ... and you‘re going to actually end up with many Republicans...

BURKMAN:  Let me give you an example of how...


GUERRIERO:  ... who will determine whether Republicans hold Congress...

BURKMAN:  Let me give you an example of...


BURKMAN:  ... how Patrick plays with words.  There‘s this issue—he said, Americans didn‘t wake up this morning being afraid of a Lesbian couple.  No, but that Lesbian couple is free to do what it wants.  It‘s not oppressed in America.  But that doesn‘t mean somehow that it has some right to join what the majority does.  What Patrick is arguing here is not only does he want that Lesbian couple to be free from oppression, which it deserves, I agree, but he demands!  He demands to this country and this society that they be let into what the majority is doing!

GUERRIERO:  Hey, Jack...

BURKMAN:  It‘s crazy!

GUERRIERO:  Jack, why don‘t—why don‘t we do this.  Why don‘t we see whether—you and both pay taxes.  We both love this country.  We both happen to be Republicans.  And quite frankly, I think I deserve the same rights, privileges and Republicans that you do.  And I believe the American people...

BURKMAN:  No, not...

GUERRIERO:  ... have the ability...


SCARBOROUGH:  Hold on a second.  Jack, I want to ask you this question, Jack.  I remember in 1995, when I was already in Congress, I ran as a very conservative fiscal and social conservatives.  I‘ve moderated in some areas since that time.  But I remember in 1995 somebody asking me about civil unions in Vermont.  And it was in the middle of the “Contract With America.”  I was speaking in probably one of the most conservative regions—actually, Jerry Falwell says it‘s the most conservative region in America.  And I asked a guy in the audience that was—was talking about Vermont gay marriages, I said, Why do you care what two guy guys in Vermont do?  I don‘t want people in Vermont telling us in Florida what to do, we shouldn‘t tell them what to do.  Isn‘t that the whole idea of state‘s rights and federalism that Republicans have been talking about for years?

BURKMAN:  Yes, but, and the but is, we don‘t—we, as Republicans and conservatives don‘t often support federal preemption, but we do when the—we strongly support federal action when the issue rises to this level.  And there the issue rises, Joe, is the moral fabric of the country, and the states are not acting quickly enough...

SCARBOROUGH:  But if I‘m offended by what they‘re doing in Vermont, if I think they‘re immoral, I can just move to New Hampshire, can‘t I?


BURKMAN:  Those arguments can be made about any kind of federal action.  The point is—I mean, I‘m—I‘m a conservative, but there‘s a time when the federal government must act.  I mean, I support...

GUERRIERO:  Jack, do you know that we have a federal law in this country which defines marriage as something that‘s between a man and a woman?  Even if I disagree with it, that‘s the law of the land.  Over 40 states have their own laws that actually add a layer to that.  The reality is this, that this is playing politics with the American Constitution.  George Bush...

BURKMAN:  No, it‘s not!  That‘s a false statement!


BURKMAN:  I can‘t let you get away with that!


SCARBOROUGH:  Patrick, I appreciate you being with us, too.

And friends, let me just say this again.  I mean, you know, you can be for or against gay marriage, it just seems to me that Republicans are going to have to decide once and for all whether they believe in states‘ rights or not because the same Republicans that are stepping forward and the same conservatives who are saying we need this national preemption, and the federal government should get involved in gay marriage, are some of the same Republicans that when it comes to abortion are saying, Let the states decide what to do on the issue of abortion.  You can‘t have it both ways.  And in both cases, I believe that the federal government should mind its own business and keep it out of the constitutional realm.

Coming up next: When you take your car in to get serviced, how do you know if you‘re being taken to the cleaners when it comes to the bill?  When we come back, a hidden-camera investigation you‘re not going to believe.

And new accusations against O.J. Simpson, and this time, he may have been caught on tape with his pants down.  O.J.‘s lawyer‘s here to explain.


SCARBOROUGH:  We take you to Southern California next, another chase, another crash, another clip from “Must See S.C.,” eating pavement at the speed of sound—that and our undercover investigation that you just got to see, when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns.

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


SCARBOROUGH:  O.J. Simpson may have finally been caught in the act.  Uh, a new sex tape allegedly starring O.J. Simpson on the Web.  We have got O.J.‘s lawyer here and the man who is selling it. 

And we have got no idea what kind of dance this is.  But all we can admit is, it‘s amazing.  We will you show that in our “Download” segment. 

Welcome back to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY—those stories in minutes.

But, first, it‘s time for tonight‘s “Must See S.C.,” video you have got just to see.

But first up, L.A., where a motorcycle police chase ended badly for—you guessed it—the idiot trying to race away from the cops.  Police were chasing the man on his Harley, when the bike clipped another vehicle, sent the man flying across the freeway.  The cops surrounded him, booked him, and then took him to the hospital. 

Next up, Fort Myers, Virginia, where wrecking crew imploded this military housing unit at an Army base.  You would think the Army could handle its own demolition, but decided to hire a private company to come in and take care of the dirty work for them. 

And finally to Germany, where some die-hard soccer fans got a final tuneup before the World Cup by playing a match in the mud.  The tournament was held in the mudflats along Germany‘s Elbe River.  And all the money that was raised went to charity. 

Now, you have probably taken your car to the national Jiffy Lube for an oil change or a tune-up.  You know, 30 million people do a year. 

But KNBC, our NBC station in Los Angeles, discovered that you might not get what you pay for.  Take a look at this amazing undercover investigation. 


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Forty, 60, 80, 100.

JOEL GROVER, KNBC REPORTER (voice-over):  We shelled out a lot of cash...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Three hundred bucks.

GROVER:  ... at repair shops across town. 


GROVER:  But were the repairs we paid for really done?  Listen to this former insider. 

(on camera):  Does this happen to customers a lot? 


GROVER (voice-over):  Customers of America‘s biggest lube and tube chain, Jiffy Lube. 

To conduct our investigation, we wired two test cars with hidden cameras in places we had never put them before to watch mechanics from every angle.  Then, we drove one of those cars to this Encino Jiffy Lube to get an oil change.  A service adviser named Leo recommends more repairs, like changing the fuel filter. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Fuel filter every 48 months or 60,000 miles.

GROVER:  We tell them, go ahead and do it.


GROVER:  And then we pay up. 

But they didn‘t change the fuel filter.  We know that because before, taking our car in, we lowered the gas tank, so I could get to the fuel filter and mark it with a big four.  After leaving that Encino Jiffy Lube, we checked the fuel filter.  And the original one with the four was still in the car. 

(on camera):  Why didn‘t they change the fuel filter? 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  It‘s so easy for them to get away with it, and why go through the trouble of doing it?

GROVER:  You charge us hard-earned money for a repair that you never did. 

(voice-over):  We will come back to Leo in just a minute. 

But, first, watch what happens when we take our other test car to this Jiffy Lube in Canoga Park. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I will change the transmission fluid.

GROVER:  A manager named Anthony recommends a top-of-the-line transmission flush. 

(on camera):  When you do the transmission, how does that work? 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  We do with it the machine.

GROVER (voice-over):  A machine called T-Tech, which they are supposed to hook up to the transmission lines under the car to suck out all the dirty fluid.  But the entire time our car was being serviced, we noticed, no one ever touched that machine. 

And our hidden camera shows no one ever touched the transmission lines underneath.  But they charged us for the T-Tech service anyway.  We got stiffed at five out of nine Jiffy Lubes we tested.  And no one would explain why.

(on camera):  Hi, Leo?  I‘m Joel Grover.

(voice-over):  Like Leo at the Encino store. 

(on camera):  You charged us for a new fuel filter, but you never put it in this car.  Why?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I don‘t remember, to be honest.

GROVER:  Can I show you yourself on videotape? 


GROVER (voice-over):  But he remembered...


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Fuel filter every 48 months or 60,000 miles.

GROVER:  ... when he saw himself on tape. 

(on camera):  How do you explain this? 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I don‘t know, to be honest. 

GROVER (voice-over):  And he rushed away...

(on camera):  Were you trying to make an easy buck off us? 


GROVER:  ... to call his district manager. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Channel 4 is right here.  Well, they caught us on camera. 

GROVER:  And what would Anthony say... 

(on camera):  How are you?


GROVER:  ... at the Canoga Park Jiffy Lube?

(on camera):  There was a camera in here watching you the whole time. 

You charged us for a transmission service that you never did.  Why? 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Sorry, sir.  Like I said, you would have to talk to my district manager. 

GROVER (voice-over):  So, we track down the district manager, Steven Ayou (ph)...

(on camera):  Yes, are you Steve Ayou (ph)?


GROVER:  ... who denied his identity. 

(on camera):  Are you the district manager? 


GROVER (voice-over):  He tell us he‘s just a customer.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  My name is Alex. 

GROVER (on camera):  Alex? 


GROVER:  Which is your car?


GROVER:  Which one?


GROVER (voice-over):  But that red car...

(on camera):  That‘s your red Camaro back there?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Yes.  What‘s going on with it?

GROVER (voice-over):  ... belonged to another customer, and the district manager was lying to us. 

(on camera):  I think you are the district manager. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I would like for to you turn off the camera, and I would appreciate it. 


SCARBOROUGH:  With me now is the reporter who did the undercover investigation, KNBC‘s Joel Grover.

Joel, first of all, explain to me what‘s going on with Jiffy Lube. 

Why are they ripping off their customers so brazenly? 

GROVER:  Well, Joe, insiders me tell me that they are basically pushed to be on a quota system.  They are asked to sell a certain amount of repairs per car that comes in to a store. 

But tell me, there‘s such a huge volume of cars that come in, they really don‘t even have the time to do all the repairs that they sell.  That‘s kind of the bottom line. 

SCARBOROUGH:  You know, Joel, every time, over the past five, 10 years, when I have taken my cars to these type of places, and not just Jiffy Lube, but other places like it, car service places, I will go in, and I will want to get a tire—a tire fixed, or the tires rotated. 

And if my wife or somebody else takes the car in, when it comes back, there are 1,000 different items.  And I have learned to say, just do—tell them, we just want done what I asked for. 

And, yet, it seems that, again, this may not just be Jiffy Lube.  It seems that just about every place I take my cars to, this is what ends up happening.  I mean, do you think—do you think there are these type of quotas at all these type of dealerships? 

GROVER:  I have done a number of investigations on other chains.  And, yes, many, if not most of them, seem to have these types of quotas as well. 

You got to keep in mind that a chain like Jiffy Lube is not making most of its money selling you oil changes.  They are making money selling you all those other services.  And that‘s why employees say they are pushed so hard to sell a whole variety of other services. 

SCARBOROUGH:  So, what...


GROVER:  The company makes more money.  The employees get bonuses. 

That‘s—that‘s really what it‘s all about. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And everybody is happy, but the customer.

So, what does Jiffy Lube say about all this? 

GROVER:  Jiffy Lube is saying nothing to me, at least on camera.  We have asked them repeatedly to sit down and talk with us on camera.

I have a lot of questions I would like to ask them.  They continually refuse to.  When I said, why won‘t you sit down and talk with me; I will lay everything out for you, how we did our investigation, they say, we have absolutely nothing to benefit from answering your questions. 

So, they really haven‘t said much.  They have sent me e-mails.  They have told me in e-mails they have taken our investigation very seriously.  They have now done their own investigation, and have taken what they have called aggressive steps to stop the type of fraud that we have uncovered. 

Here‘s some of the steps.  They tell me that six employees that we caught on tape are now gone, including that district manager who lied to me.  They have provided ethics training for all managers in the L.A. area.

And they are now installing video cameras in 31 L.A. area stores, so that customers can now watch their cars being serviced and make sure the repairs are being done, as promised. 

SCARBOROUGH:  OK.  Great work, Joel.  Thank you so much for being with us, Joel Grover.

GROVER:  Thanks.  Thank you. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And I‘m joined right now by Rita Cosby.  She‘s the host of “RITA COSBY LIVE & DIRECT.”

Rita, what do you have coming up next at 10:00? 

RITA COSBY, HOST, “RITA COSBY: LIVE & DIRECT”:  Well, Joe, tonight, we have got incredible video.  We will show you what a fast-food employee did when she thought that a policeman was on the phone.  It has happened in many cities.  We will expose a big hoax which was caught on tape. 

Plus, we will take you for a revealing look inside the San Quentin Prison.  What is life like on death row, especially for Scott Peterson? 

And we are going to talk to five guys who have killed many people, but only on television.  Five big-name cast members of the hit series “The Sopranos” are going to join me.  We have got that and a whole lot more.  It‘s a great show, live, at The top of the hour—Joe. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Thanks, Rita.  Rita is coming up next. 

And, you know, Rita, I have just got to say, I saw “The Sopranos” last night.  I see it all the time.  I was just a little disappointed.  And I thought the ending WAS a little anticlimactic.  But I‘m going to watch Rita to see what they have to say about it.  Rita is coming up next, at 10:00 -- a big ending for “Big Love,” though an hour later. 

Coming up next:  Move over, Paris Hilton.  A sex tape is on the Web.  And the star shows more than a passing resemblance to O.J. Simpson.  O.J.‘s lawyer and the producer marketing the tape are here with the details and the smackdown. 

And what happens when you put a handful of Mentos into a bottle of diet soda?  As many fans of a Web clip have found out, the results are explosive.  Yes, that‘s nothing more than Mentos and Diet Coke—coming up. 



SCARBOROUGH:  Move over, Paris Hilton.  The latest celebrity sex tape making the rounds on the Internet, O.J. Simpson‘s.

“The New York Daily News” broke the story this week, and that the video is now available all over the World Wide Web.  But O.J. says, save your money; it‘s a fraud.  O.J.‘s lawyer also claims the producer edited video clips of Simpson with a sex tape featuring an O.J. look-alike. 

With me now to talk about it, O.J. Simpson‘s lawyer, Yale Galanter, and also producer David Hans Schmidt, who is marketing the tape. 

David, let me start with you.  They are saying you are making all this up, that you‘re just lying; it‘s not really O.J.


DAVID HANS SCHMIDT, CELEBRITY PORNOGRAPHY BROKER:  Boy, if that‘s the only defense O.J.‘s lawyer has got here, man, this is going to be a cake walk for us, fellows.

No, Joe, there‘s no denying that this is O.J. Simpson, no more than

there‘s denying that he was at 850 Bundy Drive here on June 12, this Friday

coming up on that, 12 years ago, in my opinion.  But that‘s a whole ‘nother


This is O.J. Simpson sitting down at a hotel.  It‘s O.J. Simpson cavorting with known prostitutes.  It‘s O.J. Simpson smoking pot, snorting cocaine, and copulating with individuals, if you will.  That aside, we have got it on tape.  It‘s out there on the World Wide Web now.  And, Yale, I‘m sure we will get a letter from your office, but, hey, we‘re ready. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Yale, is it O.J. Simpson? 


The first part of the tape is definitely O.J. Simpson.  This tape, first of all, has been around for over five years.  This was originally a setup by the “Globe” tabloid.  I gave a number of interviews on it at the time.  And they actually caught him coming into a hotel with his girlfriend at the time fully clothed. 

Then what they did was, they got a look-alike, an impostor, who, by the way, you never see his face on the second half of the tape, or the sex part of the tape. 


GALANTER:  The producer at the time—we wrote a cease-and-desist letter.  They pulled it off the Internet. 

Mr. Schmidt somehow got a hold of the footage.  But maybe he just paid the $20 at the time, and kept it in the archives, and figured this would be a good time to produce it.  But it‘s a total fraud.  It‘s not O.J. Simpson.  The tape is a fake.  I can tell America, don‘t waste your money, because it‘s not worth it.


SCARBOROUGH:  So, Yale, are you going to sue David?

SCHMIDT:  He is dead wrong. 

No.  Well, here‘s the thing.  It is O.J. Simpson. 

GALANTER:  No, first of all, David, I‘m not dead wrong.  It isn‘t O.J.



SCHMIDT:  You‘re dead wrong, because you didn‘t...


GALANTER:  We actually had forensic experts...


SCARBOROUGH:  Hold on a second. 


SCARBOROUGH:  One at a time.


SCARBOROUGH:  Guys, hold on a second. 


SCARBOROUGH:  OK.  Don‘t make me do it.  Don‘t make me do it. 

SCHMIDT:  Well, the fact is this.  The fact is this.


SCARBOROUGH:  Hold on.  I‘m going to have to do it.  I hate doing it. 

Cut their microphones. 

I just did it.  I hate doing that.  We—we have got—we have got to organize this thing. 

Yale, I am going to let you speak first and talk about your forensic evidence. 

And then we will go to you, David. 

Go ahead, Yale.

SCHMIDT:  Thank you, sir. 

GALANTER:  Years ago, we took the tape and the sex part of the tape, where you couldn‘t see anybody‘s face.  And we had the leg portion of the male actor examined by a forensics expert. 

You know, O.J. has known scars on his legs and knees from reported surgeries and football injuries.  This impostor didn‘t have any of those marks or scars.  It is not O.J. Simpson, Joe. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, David, respond.

SCHMIDT:  Thank you.  Thank you.  I shall respond forthwith and coming. 

It is O.J. Simpson out of the gate in the hotel room cavorting with the prostitutes.  It‘s O.J. running naked through the bathroom.  It‘s O.J.  gets up and goes to snort cocaine.  It‘s O.J. that talks about his sexual dysfunctionality.

SCARBOROUGH:  How can you prove that?

SCHMIDT:  Because it‘s—he is not—even his lawyer is not denying that‘s O.J. on the first part of the tape.  On the second part of the tape, we don‘t have a head shot on the sex scenes.

But, that aside, there‘s no doubt, no inquisitivity whatsoever that it‘s O.J. Simpson for 95 percent of this tape.  So, America, if you want to see O.J. unveiled, OK, the real, true O.J. Simpson, go to O.J.—, and you will see it. 


SCARBOROUGH:  So, Yale, if this is the case, Yale, why don‘t you sue “The Daily News,” that published this report, and why don‘t you sue David? 

GALANTER:  Well, first of all, I don‘t think that—I don‘t think George Rush‘s article was inaccurate. 

I mean, he reported that this gentlemen is trying to market a film on his Web site.  And that‘s what it is.  It‘s an attempt to make money based on a fraudulent piece of tape.  We had it stopped the first time around.  We will have it stopped this time around.  It‘s not O.J. Simpson.


GALANTER:  Mr. Schmidt told Mr. Rush yesterday, there‘s—there‘s—you know, we—we are not profiting from it.  They don‘t have a contractual arrangement with us. 

If it was us, we would be entitled to some money.  It‘s not us, Joe.

It has nothing to do with us.  It‘s a sham.  It‘s a fake. 


SCHMIDT:  Well, see, Joe, that‘s—that‘s his defense, but it‘s not accurate, because the big part of this tape is O.J. Simpson.  The very minuscule part of this about him having sex is irrelevant. 

The real catch here that America is going to want to see is, this is O.J. Simpson talking about sexual addictions, talking with these prostitutes, snorting cocaine with him.  And hang on for next month, because we have a sequel coming up.


GALANTER:  Joe, this is a five-year-old story.

SCHMIDT:  It‘s not.


GALANTER:  And, if America wants to waste $20, they can send me an e-mail.  I will give them more details than are on this tape. 

SCHMIDT:  Send us $19.95, and we will get it to you.

But, Joe, coming up next month is a sequel.  O.J. does a sheep.  We call it

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.             

We are going to stop it right there.  I should have kept the mike and kept it cut.


SCARBOROUGH:  Yale Galanter, thank you.

Thank you, David Hans Schmidt.

And, coming up next, what do you get when you cross Gumby and Michael Jackson?  Well, maybe this guy‘s interpretive dance. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Welcome back. 

And now must-see P.C., some crazy clips my staff found surfing the Internet, instead of doing their jobs. 

Look at this guy.  Now, he can dance.  You remember Gumby?  Well, here‘s the human version. 

I can do that.  Yes, right. 

And, here, two guys mix nothing but two liters of Diet Coke and four Mentos.  It gives the term fountain soda a whole new meaning. 

Kids, don‘t try that at home.  Again, it‘s Mentos and Diet Coke.

Actually, I think you can try it at home. 

Ah, the Internet, what will they think of next? 

We will be right back with tonight‘s mailbag. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, it‘s time to for the SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY mailbag. 

And let‘s start with Mary in Oklahoma.  She writes: “Dear Joe, I‘m glad to hear you talking about this odd cut in funds in New York and Washington, D.C.  They‘re worried about national monuments out in the middle of the country?  National monuments are things.  On 9/11, people were killed.”

Mary, great point. 

And let‘s move on to Roberta in California.  She writes, “Dear Joe,

it‘s no surprise to real fans of the Dixie Chicks that their new C.D. is

number one on the Billboard charts.  They are very talented women.  And the

reaction to Natalie‘s comment in 2003 was outrageous.  It was one line, and

it was completely blown out of proportion.”  

Well, even if it was blown out of proportion, then, obviously, fans have forgiven, forgotten, and moved on.  The Chicks are back. 

Tell me what you think about the show tonight.  Send me an e-mail to  That‘s  And make sure you include your name and your hometown, so we can read your e-mail on SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.

That‘s all the time we have for the show tonight.  Thanks so much for being with us. 

“RITA COSBY LIVE & DIRECT” starts right now—Rita.

COSBY:  Thanks, Joe.



Copy: Content and programming copyright 2006 MSNBC.  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.  Transcription Copyright 2006 Voxant, Inc. ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user‘s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon MSNBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.