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

'Live with Dan Abrams' for Nov. 29

Read the transcript to the Thursday show

Guests: Ben Smith, Leslie Sanchez, Adrian Martinez, Deborah Notkin, Glenda Hatchett, Bill Majeski, Jonna Spilbor, Candice DeLong, Dave Fantle

DAN ABRAMS, HOST:  Tonight, former New York City mayor, Rudy Giuliani‘s running for president on what he calls his fiscally conservative record.  Now fighting to explain how tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars were used to cover security detail for weekend romps in the posh New York Hampton‘s, visits to his then extramarital girlfriend, Judith Nathan is now his third wife.  Many of those visits, the “New York Times” reports tonight, were not on his official schedule. obtained American Express bills and other documents showing three summers trips to South Hampton where Giuliani‘s team racked up thousands in gas and hotel bills for security detail while still married to second wife, Donna Hanover Giuliani, he managed to hide the cost of security for the trips deep inside the budgets of obscure city agencies like the New York City Loft Board.  The office of people with disabilities, the procurement policy board and something called the Counsel Administrative Office.  OK.  It seems pretty clear the money was tucked away to hide the then mayor‘s affair.  The mayor‘s required to have security detail with him at all times.  It‘s not the detail that was improper, just the details about how the trips were funded.  A point he completely ignored when asked about it last night.


RUDY GIULIANI, ® PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  First of all, it‘s not true.  I had 24-hour security for the eight years that I was mayor.  I had nothing to do with the handling of their records and they were handled, as far as I know, perfectly appropriately.


ABRAMS:  All right.  More important, I would think, is he was just starting to win support from some evangelical voters, an endorsement from Pat Robertson, a well-received speech at the Value Voters‘ Summit.  How can he be a serious, so-called family values candidate when he was squirreling away taxpayer money to cover up an affair?  Joining us now is MSNBC political analyst, Lawrence O‘Donnell; Republican strategist, Leslie Sanchez and the reporter who broke the story and now reverberating to this is “Politico” reporter, Ben Smith.  Thanks very much to all of you.  All right.  Ben, has the Giuliani campaign, first of all, addressed this?

BEN SMITH, POLITICO.COM:  No.  They‘ve answered a couple of questions, which we didn‘t quite ask.  They said that the security detail was appropriate.  Which is true.  You know, if he was taking his wife and kids to Disneyland, he should have had security.  If he was going to visit his mistress in the Hampton‘s, he should have had security.  And they‘ve also talked about—said that the money wasn‘t rated from these agencies, they was sort of buried in these budget lines.  But that the agencies were ultimately reimbursed from the police department.  But they haven‘t answered two questions.  One is - you know, who actually made the decision to put the money on these obscure lines and they‘ve blamed anonymous bookkeepers.  They don‘t know who.  And the other question—when the city comptroller came asking about this in 2002, in an interview today he said this was a disturbing pattern and he also said they stonewalled.  Giuliani aides are now saying they have no memory of that audit.

ABRAMS:  All right.  Now look, Leslie, we can get into an accounting debate here.  But I think that more important for voters, in particular, evangelical voters, who Giuliani has been spending so much time trying to court is going to be the notion not just that he‘s having an affair, but is squirreling away the money in an effort to hide it.


spin is worse, what I‘ve been hearing on the airwaves or what I‘m hearing

tonight.  I mean, let‘s look at the facts -

ABRAMS:  This is on the airwaves.

SANCHEZ:  OK.  There you go.  Thank you.  My point being, you can definitely tell its political season, that 24 hours prior to debate that this kind of salacious story would come out, you know, sex in the city and whatever they‘re trying to sell.  But reality is that most people had known this.  With respect to evangelicals, and Christian conservatives and social conservative voters, these are folks who had a lot of time to get comfortable with Giuliani.  They may not agree on his choice of gays and gun control.  But they made decisions about him.

ABRAMS:  They knew he was squirreling way money in these random organizations in an effort to hide his affair?

SANCHEZ:  Yes.  A couple of different things.  There‘s going to be clarity, you know, assuming in the next couple of days as to who actually made those decisions, very much to Ben‘s point.  But the other thing is you‘re acting as if the mayor had personal knowledge of that.  There‘s no indication.  He said everything was disclosed, that this was standard operating procedure.  I think people in the media, and the Democrats, are trying to make a big mountain out of something because they recognize this is a big threat.

ABRAMS:  Well, you know, look, Lawrence, I‘ll tell you why I‘m making a big deal about it.  And that is because Giuliani has, A, run this campaign on his fiscal conservative record, in part.  And, number two, because he‘s been trying so hard to court evangelical voters.  It seems to me this is a reminder that this campaign does not want or need.

LAWRENCE O‘DONNELL, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST:  That‘s right, Dan.  Every voter counts in Republican primaries.  And we have a pretty good idea of what Republicans care about.  This is the kind of behavior that most Republicans will care about.  Sure, there‘s going to be some Republicans who ignore it.  It doesn‘t matter to them at all.  They‘ll think within the budget of New York City, this is a small amount of money.  But there is news here.  I mean, let‘s not pretend that we all knew this.  What‘s been discovered here are specific dates that Rudy Giuliani was conducting the affair that would eventually break up his marriage.  Those specific dates in the mayor‘s public calendar have been blank.  They‘ve never said he was in South Hampton for most of those dates.  So, there‘s real behavioral news here that we did not previously know about the disillusion of his marriage, about the development of the affair that became his third marriage.  And so that‘s real new biographical information.  And it‘s deadly if it gets another few news cycles in the Republican primaries.  All you have to do in Iowa is hurt him by a few thousand votes here or there and he doesn‘t come in first.  In New Hampshire and these states, these are small states, small voter populations.  A few thousand votes here and there can kill his campaign.

ABRAMS:  Go ahead, Leslie.

SANCHEZ:  Yes, well, there‘s a couple of different things.  Iowa and New Hampshire, they get a lot of retail politics.  I mean, we understand that.  People you know, tend to anchor a little bit more earlier on in terms of who they like.  And you haven‘t seen Giuliani at the top one or two in Iowa.  So, let‘s talk realistically.  It‘s going to snowball after those two states.  You have a lot of economic conservatives.  And this is a time in the primary where people are looking at big picture ideas, not little picture ideas.  They‘re very concerned about the economy.  As long as Rudy Giuliani is very strong on national security, on keeping America safe, he hit the ground running, those are issues that trump American voters.


ABRAMS:  That‘s what he hopes will trump.

SANCHEZ:  No.  That‘s what the polls show.

ABRAMS:  Are you going to tell me Republicans did not win the 2004 election because they got the evangelical voters out?

SANCHEZ:  There‘s two distinctively different things.  I can‘t tell me if you don‘t have a Huckabee on a ticket, of a Giuliani-Huckabee ticket, that wouldn‘t erase a lot of the doubts that evangelicals and social conservatives have.  You have to look a little bit longer term than these types of salacious stories that come up in a political cycle.  He‘s still very strong on the issues that matter most.

ABRAMS:  Ben, I mean, Leslie is sort of trying to characterize this sort of a red herring.  This is kind of irrelevant little details about fiscal management and in the end will become secondary in Iowa.  But it seems to me that there are a lot of Republicans outside of New York who are trying to figure out what is Rudy Giuliani about?  Who is this guy, who is the mayor of New York?  I know he‘s good.  I know he did well, they believed, after 9/11.  But they kind of not know what to make of him and a lot of these other issues.  I think that‘s why this is potentially so devastating.

SMITH:  Well, you know, I don‘t want to kind of play pundit.  But as Lawrence said before, this stuff gets, I mean this had been successfully walled off from this campaign probably because we all thought it was old news, things like the fact that the now Judith Giuliani had her own personal police detail before they were married.  And that stuff is now - I mean, those many of my colleagues in the New York tabloids are sitting on mountains of this stuff which this sort of opens the door to them to not report (ph).

ABRAMS:  Leslie was suggesting maybe the timing is questionable, how you got these documents and was almost an allegation that you were politicizing this by coming out with this the day before the debate.

SMITH:  Yes, I don‘t really know, I‘m not sure, I don‘t really know why they‘re saying that.  They haven‘t actually—the campaign hasn‘t questioned any facts in the story.  But, you know, I filed a freedom of information request for this stuff on my own initiative in June and then another one a couple of months later.  The documents arrived a week or two ago.  And then I called the campaign Monday to ask them in detail about it.  And they didn‘t want to respond on the record.

ABRAMS:  Yes, it seems to me Leslie, no matter when this came out, you

would have accused Politico of the timing, no matter, whether it came right

before this debate or that debate or -

SMITH:  There are cannonballs all over the place with respect to these types of attacks on multiple candidates.  This is not going to be new, this will not be the first time, you know first or last time.  So, that‘s more what the point of what I‘m saying is.  You know, we‘re going to hear a lot more about this.  And you‘re going to hear a lot more about it, about the top tier contenders or who the media believes are the top tier contenders.

O‘DONNELL:  I don‘t think we‘re going to hear anything about Mike Huckabee having an affair and using Arkansas governor‘s office budget to affect that affair.  In some way or other, this is a unique story; this is a guy, a politician who lives the life of a movie star.  Where I am right now, here in Los Angeles, his behavior is within a certain kind of norm for movie stars.  For politicians, his behavior was truly bizarre prior to September 11th in New York.  New Yorkers know it.  The nation doesn‘t.  This story offers the campaign, the possibility of opening up these kinds of facts about Giuliani.  I‘m not sure it‘s going to have traction.


ABRAMS:  The “New York Times” has come out with an article tonight saying an examination of many of his statements, talking about some of the numbers that Giuliani has thrown out, of the statement by the “New York Times,” other news organizations and independent groups have turned up a variety of misstatements, virtually all of which cast Mr. Giuliani or this arguments in a better light.  See, on this one, Leslie, I think you will be able to say when you get sort of general statements, you can say, well, you know, this is the political agenda of somebody or another, but the problem is when you get reporters like Ben, like the “Times” and other people going through and actually looking at the numbers, looking at where it went, I think that Giuliani is a potential problem.  Final word on this, Leslie?  I got to wrap it up.

SANCHEZ:  Bottom line, you know, it‘s something that these candidates expect.  There‘s no doubt about that.  This is a candidate who has been at the top of the ticket over a year.  You have to look at, people had a lot of time to get to know Giuliani.  They‘ll have a lot more time, social conservatives, evangelicals (INAUDIBLE).

ABRAMS:  I‘ve got to tell, here in New York, I kept hearing wait until they hear about Giuliani.  A lot of stuff‘s going to come out about Giuliani.  And it seems that it‘s starting.  We shall see.  Lawrence O‘Donnell, Leslie Sanchez, Ben Smith.  Thanks a lot.

Coming up: Last night as many Republicans fought over who would build the biggest, most impenetrable fence on the border, a new reality TV show which starting that is making light of the issue and many of those same constituents are furious.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I just have so much love for the world and so much love to give to you.


ABRAMS:  Apparently giving this guy a chance to marry an American is another reason for anti-immigration fanatics to get all worked up.  If you‘re not one of those fanatics, our next debate may be the first time the immigration issue makes you laugh, a lot.  It‘s a reality show.

And later: Stacy Peterson reportedly told a clergyman in August that husband Drew confessed he killed his third wife and made it look like an accident.  I‘m starting to think he could soon be charged with her murder even as Stacy is still missing.

Plus: FOX‘s Bill O‘Reilly says it‘s harder for police to do their jobs now that cameras can catch misconduct.  I guess that‘s why the police are putting cameras on their dashboards.  Another absurd O‘Reilly-ism coming up in Beat the Press.


ABRAMS:  Did you know last year, the Federal government arrested 30 in a probe dubbed - operation honeymooners.  They said it involved more than a hundred fraudulent marriages between U.S. citizens and immigrants.  Coming up: A new reality show that tries to match immigrant with U.S. citizens who want to get married and it‘s setting anti-immigrant fanatics off.  It‘s a game show.  But it seems when it comes to immigration with some people, nothing can lead to a smile.  I will be smiling through the debate. 


ABRAMS:  Who wants to marry U.S. citizen? is a new game show that seeks to match up a U.S. citizen with one of a group of immigrants who have only temporary visas.  (INAUDIBLE) if they don‘t win over this woman‘s heart, they get deported.  Now, some of the rabid anti-immigrants folks are going nuts over this and actually taking the show really seriously.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I‘m honest.  I‘m hardworking.  (INAUDIBLE).  I dream better life.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  And I just have so much love for the world and so much love to give to you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  I‘ll never cheat on you and it would be us and be there until the end.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  I would marry all of these guys.  I can only choose one.


ABRAMS:  I guess congratulations in order for Hector.  Now, if you don‘t like the law that people can become citizens through marriage, they can change it.  This show is like every other game show, it‘s just the superficial and the guilty pleasure like the others.  Here now, the executive producer of “Who wants to marry a U.S. citizen?”—Adrian Martinez.  All right.  Adrian, let me ask you about this show.  You know, some on the far Right are going to be saying, you know what?  You‘re encouraging these people to come here.  You‘re giving them a reason to want to get citizenship in a kind of fake way.  And I think that some of them might say you‘re going to provide further for those who are simply anti-immigrant.

ADRIAN MARTINEZ, “WHO WANTS TO MARRY A U.S. CITIZEN?”:  Well, Dan, first of all, thanks for having me on the show.  They don‘t have to worry about anything.  All we‘re doing is creating a platform, a sort of a dating game type show with a certain demographic of contestants in mind.  All we‘re doing is playing matchmaker.  If it works out, great.  If it doesn‘t, you know that‘s what we‘ve done.  That‘s as far as we‘re going with this.

ABRAMS:  Are any of them illegals?

MARTINEZ:  No.  All our contestants have to be you know, legal—they have to have legal status here, whether you know, it‘s temporary, you know, travel tourist, whatever, what have you.  And that‘s all we‘re asking for.  And you know, we‘re not trying to say—we‘re not promising we‘re going to marry people or we‘re going you know, give them citizenship or a green card.  You know, that‘s not our business.  All we want to do is play the role of a matchmaker.

ABRAMS:  All right.  Here‘s a little bit more of some of the questioning that goes on.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Hector, if we were stranded on an island, how would you save us?

HECTOR:  All right.  If we were to needed to be saved, I think I would find a way to make a sign.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Roberto, I‘m sick.  How would you take care of me?

ROBERTO:  If you were sick?  Again, I love to cook.  So, I would make you homemade chicken soup.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Miguel, I‘m feeling down.  How would you cheer me up?

MIGUEL:  I would cheer you up by taking out my guitar and singing you a personal song, custom made just for you about our relationship with each other.


ABRAMS:  Let‘s bring Deborah Notkin, the former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.  All right.  Deborah, you know, you seemed - you look at this angrily.  I mean, you know, so what?  It‘s a reality show, the same way all these other silly reality shows are games.

DEBORAH NOTKIN, FMR. PRES., IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION:  Well, I think this capitalizes on the desperation of immigrants here who are victims of a broken system that needs to be fixed.

ABRAMS:  Do they look like victims, these guys?


ABRAMS:  I mean, they look like they‘re having a good time.  What‘s the big deal?

NOTKIN:  I‘ll tell you something, I think there‘s some desperation, I think the show tries to put that forward.  If you look at their Web site, they have a Web site with these three guys and they say, one will get to stay and the other two will probably be deported.  Now, if they were all legal here, there‘s no reason why they should be deported.

ABRAMS:  What about people, though, who go on a game show to marry a guy with millions of dollars and the one who wins is going to be with the guy with millions of dollars and the other two may be back in poverty so to speak.  Is that different?

NOTKIN:  Yes, it is different.


NOTKIN:  That‘s a very good question.  I‘ll tell you why.  Because

when somebody is looking for a lifelong partner, it‘s hard enough to find

them without this -

ABRAMS:  Lighten up, Deborah.

NOTKIN:  No.  Let me tell you something.  I‘m a lawyer.  I have clients who can get permanent residence through employment-based means.  It‘s a lot more arduous than marrying their lover, their lifelong companion and using that to get a green card, but they prefer to do that because they don‘t want to put this kind of thing in their marriage if they don‘t have to.  This adds an element to it.

ABRAMS:  That‘s their choice.

NOTKIN:  It‘s exploitive.  I‘ll tell you something else.  It may not

work.  Because you have to have a bona fide marriage.  And if the

immigration authorities are watching this and if they ask in the marriage

interview, where have you met?  And they explain this -

ABRAMS:  They‘ll say - we fell in love on the show.  We fell in love,

because they ask questions like this -

NOTKIN:  And they fell in love three weeks ago?

ABRAMS:  Let‘s listen.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Hector, it‘s our anniversary.  How do we make it memorable?

HECTOR:  OK.  Thinking that it is our anniversary, I think what I would like to do is call all the people that you love.  Let‘s say your family, your parents, your brothers, sisters, and all together have like a surprise for you at home and have your favorite dish on the table and do something special where I can tell you how much I love you and how much I am happy to be with you another year.


ABRAMS:  So, that bothers you still?

NOTKIN:  It bothers me and I‘ll tell you why.  Because, it is a desperate alternative.  Probably these three guys are here, contributing to our society, working, wanting to work.

ABRAMS:  And they get the opportunity to be on a game show.  And they

get a lot of -

NOTKIN:  No.  The only way to get permanent residence for them is to

desperately find somebody who -

ABRAMS:  Adrian, playing with the facts a little bit here.  The only, I mean, come on.  He‘s having fun with it.  Look at him, he‘s smiling.  Yes, don‘t take it so seriously.  Adrian Martinez, have to wrap it up.

MARTINEZ:  Dan, that‘s my point.

ABRAMS:  Yes, I know.  Your point is look, lighten up everybody and I agree with you. Deborah Notkin, thanks a lot.

MARTINEZ:  Just have fun.  You‘re right.

NOTKIN:  Thanks.

ABRAMS:  Coming up: Stacy Peterson reportedly said her husband, Drew confessed he killed his third wife and made it look like an accident.  Now, I‘m starting to believe he could get charged for his third‘s wife murder even his fourth wife, Stacy, is still missing.  But Peterson‘s attorney is still bluffing everyone and anyone who says anything bad Peterson.

Plus: FOX‘s Bill O‘Reilly says he‘s fighting the good fight for a traditional American values by playing video of a really hot woman because she‘s really hot.  Coming up in Beat the Press.


ABRAMS:  It‘s time for tonight‘s Beat the Press.  Our daily look back at the absurd and sometimes amusing perils of live TV.  First up: Over on FOX, Bill O‘Reilly was policing the Net.  And have said that the footage of police officers tasering citizens is ending up on the Web.


MARY KATHARINE HAM:  If somebody gets tased, it‘s going online.  And so cops need to be careful about how they‘re using it.

BILL O‘REILLY:  Absolutely.

HAM:  And make sure they‘re in line with the rules.

O‘REILLY:  You see how much more difficult policing is now, because everybody‘s got the little camera and everybody is doing this.


ABRAMS:  No.  Police abuse is more difficult.  Cops around the country are installing cameras on their cars, not to make policing more difficult, but to make it better.  And in case you didn‘t catch the culture warrior and his fierce culture fight for traditional values last night.  Here is what he calls his pinhead of the day and listen to this reasoning.


O‘REILLY:  On the pinhead front, say hello to Heidi Klum.

HEIDI KLUM:  You guys have no clue about boobs, yeah!  And if you don‘t—great knockers.  I love it!

O‘REILLY:  Pinhead, but an attractive one.


ABRAMS:  Fighting the good fight for the soul of America by showing almost naked women, at times when kids are watching.  Nice!  Finally, the grammar police are back and many viewers writing in about me and an egregious grammatical sin I committed on the show last night.


ABRAMS:  This is a guy who is sending racy text messages with Stacy who says that Drew confronted he and Stacy at a Danny‘s restaurant.


ABRAMS:  So many writing in saying I should have said confronted him and Stacy, not he and Stacy.  Thank you all so much.  I get it.

We need your help Beating the Press.  If you see anything wrong or right, amusing or absurd, go to our Web site  And leave us a tip in the box.  Please include the show and the time you saw the item.

Up next: Just when you thought things could not look any worse for suspect Drew Peterson, they do.  Today, a new report that now missing wife Stacy, told the clergyman in August that her husband confessed he killed his previous wife and made it look like an accident.  And new information about domestic disturbances with that wife.  I think he could get charged with her murder before Stacy‘s even found.

Plus: Breaking tonight, the body of a missing college student who led a secret life as an Internet porn star may have just been found.  A nationwide manhunt is under way for a man who may have killed her, and is believed to be with his pregnant 16-year-old girlfriend.  Coming up.


ABRAMS:  Up next, a new report that Stacy Peterson reportedly said husband, Drew, confessed to killing his third wife and made it look like an accident.  Now, I‘m starting to believe he could get charged for his third wife‘s murder even as fourth wife, Stacy, is still missing.  First, your latest news. 


ABRAMS:  Coming up, breaking news.  The body of a missing college student, who led a secret life as an Internet porn star may have just been found.  A nationwide manhunt is underway for a man who may have killed her.  He‘s traveling with his pregnant 16-year-old girlfriend. 

And later, teen sensation, Ashley Tisdale bombed last night‘s Rockefeller tree lighting.  I think she was trying to lip sync it.  And Paris Hilton comes clean about drunken elephants in India.  That‘s coming up in tonight‘s “Winners and Losers.”

Just when you thought it couldn‘t get worse for Drew Peterson, it has.  The former cop, a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy, facing more potentially damning evidence.  First, the “Chicago Sun Times” reporting that on the very day Stacy Peterson disappeared, she told Drew she wanted a divorce and she wanted him out. 

And now, Stacy‘s sister, Cassandra, wants Drew to take a lie detector test over that mysterious blue barrel that could have been used to dispose of Stacy‘s body.  Peterson‘s lawyer has told me there was never such a barrel.  Stacy‘s sister now says she saw one at the house before Stacy disappeared. 

But I have to say I think Peterson could actually first get charged in the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, before Stacy is even found.  The cover of the “Chicago Sun Times,” Stacy told a clergyman Drew killed Kathleen Savio, and the report says she told others as well. 

And then this, we learned that police were called to Peterson‘s house 18 times in two years for domestic disturbances while he was married to Kathleen.  The reason?  Domestic disturbances.  Savio accused her husband of threatening to kill her, and remember, he was a fellow cop.  No charges were filed.  Savio later turned up dead. 

Here with us, Judge Glenda Hatchett from the “Judge Hatchet Show,” former New York police detective Bill Majeski, and defense attorney Jonna Spilbor.  All right.  Judge, let me start with you.  Do you agree with me that there‘s a real possibility that he could get charged in connection with his third wife‘s death even before Stacy is found? 

GLENDA HATCHETT, HOST “JUDGE HATCHETT SHOW”:  I do.  And it‘s very interesting, because now that they‘ve opened up that case, they have said possible homicide.  But clearly, this was not an accidental drowning, and it may be very possible.  Now, the real key, though, is whether they can get it to be admissible, the information from the clergy, assuming, in fact, she did say something to a member of the clergy.  Under Illinois law, he is not forced to testify in that.

ABRAMS:  But, Glenda, she also may have also said it to other people as well.  It‘s not just the clergy.

HATCHETT:  That‘s exactly the point the point I was about to say.  If there are other people, then of course, that privilege would not apply.  And it‘s going to be very, very interesting, that testimony that comes out in the grand jury as to whether he is going to be indicted on this.  But I think that‘s very possible.  

ABRAMS:  So Jonna, let‘s just talk about the third wife case for now.  I mean, he‘s got loads of trouble in the fourth wife as well.  But I start to think he‘s going to get charged with Kathleen Savio‘s death.


ABRAMS:  Really? 

SPILBOR:  Well, at least we have a body in that case.  I‘m surprised that they didn‘t - when they did the investigation, whenever she actually passed, at that point, they should have said, hey, this is a homicide or this is, you know, under suspicion.  But they didn‘t, right?  They ruled it an accidental death.  So he will be charged with it.  But I don‘t think he‘s going to be found guilty of it.

ABRAMS:  Can you use the statements legally?  All right.  So here‘s the statement that we have from Stacy, who‘s not around, supposedly to a clergyman.  But Stacy also to other people.  Can you admit evidence that Stacy - a friend comes in and says, “Stacy told me that he said he killed his third wife.”  Admissible? 

SPILBOR:  Only if it comes within an exception of the hearsay rule, because that is textbook hearsay. 

HATCHETT:  Absolutely.

SPILBOR:  And since you cannot cross examine the person who said it, we have to find an exemption.  I don‘t know if there‘s going to be one.  Did she say it as a dying declaration?  Is there some exception that it will come under?  And before we know that it is admissible, it shouldn‘t come in.

ABRAMS:  All right.  Bill, here is the question everyone is asking me. 

They‘re saying why has he not been charged yet? 


ABRAMS:  But even in the third one.  Even in the third one -


MAJESKI:  There‘s a lot - oh, in the third one - Oh, OK.

ABRAMS:  Now, they exhume her body -

MAJESKI:  Right.  

ABRAMS:  They do a new autopsy.  It‘s pretty clear at this point, the Dr. Baden saying it - it‘s pretty clear now.  Even the coroner at the time saying this wasn‘t an accidental death, all right?  So now we know his third wife was probably murdered.  Now, we‘re learning that some of Stacy‘s friends are going to say, “Oh, yes.  Shoot, she said to me about him killing his third wife.”  We‘ve got her friends talking about the fact that he threatened her, and if anything happened, et cetera.  I mean, they‘re just trying to take their time.  

MAJESKI:  I think there‘s a great deal of circumstantial evidence that they‘re putting together even as we speak now.  And they probably will be charging him in the death of his third wife, and, hopefully, with the fourth wife as well.  There‘s an awful lot of circumstantial evidence that‘s circulating around on both cases.  

ABRAMS:  Before I play - I‘m going to play a really interesting set of sound of Drew Peterson and his lawyer, attacking everybody and anybody who says anything negative about them.  But judge, this blue barrel business, all right?  If the sister is willing to say, “I know that there was a blue barrel at that house,” and he‘s saying, “There was never a blue barrel at my house,” that‘s a big problem.  

HATCHETT:   It‘s not enough that the sister says there was a blue barrel at the house.  I mean, you‘ve got to have more connecting it.  Probably, the more damaging testimony will be from the person who allegedly helped him move this barrel out of the house.  That‘s where you get the connection.  The sister simply saying there‘s a barrel there, I don‘t think, it‘s enough.  

ABRAMS:  All right.  Here is where we put this together, all right?  This is what all these people, the wives, the witnesses have been saying and how Drew Peterson and his attorney have been attacking them. 


DREW PETERSON, SUSPECT IN THE DISAPPEARANCE OF STACY PETERSON (on Stacy Peterson):  This was fabricated, as a lot of things have been throughout this case.  Ever since her sister died, we actually had her see a psychiatrist and she was on medication - mood medication. 

PETERSON (on Kathleen Savio):  She came from a - an abusive home life, growing up.  She had abusive stepparents.  And again after she had children, the hormones kicked in, and again I‘m on an emotional roller coaster with her. 

JOEL BRODSKY, DREW PETERSON‘S ATTORNEY (on Vicki Connolly):  This is simply a common fight - of divorce - by somebody who went through a divorce with Mr. Peterson.  (UNINTELLIGIBLE)


MATT LAUER, HOST, THE “TODAY” SHOW:  Mr. Peterson, is there a great animosity between you and Miss Connolly? 

PETERSON:  I believe there is. 

BRODSKY (on Kyle Piry):  No, there‘s not one document to back her up.  She didn‘t get an order of protection.  We‘re asked to take her at word from 25 years ago. 

(on Scott Rossetto): You caught him in a lie, and you caught him in a lie about the nature of his relationship with Stacy.

(on Drew‘s relative, Thomas Morphey):  He has memory lapses about what occurred.  He‘s had two or three prior suicide attempts prior to the last one. 


ABRAMS:  Jonna, everyone is crazy.  They‘re all nuts.  Anyone who says anything about Drew Peterson has mental problems, right? 

SPILBOR:  Yes, right.  Let me tell you this, Dan.  You are not - how dumb would you have to be? 

ABRAMS:  Oh, the old “how dumb would you have to be” defense.  The

O.J. defense.  He never would have been so dumb as to leave a second -

SPILBOR:  No, this is even dumber.  Kill your wife and put her in a blue barrel and have somebody, “Hey, help me lug this 120-pound barrel out of this house.  By the way, my wife is missing.”  It just wouldn‘t happen that way.  So that guy could be crazy.  

ABRAMS:  Oh, Bill, come on.  You know from an investigation that this

that perps, they do the dumbest things.  

MAJESKI:  The dumbest things.

SPILBOR:  Cop perps?  Cop perps.

MAJESKI:  Yes, but the thing is sometimes it‘s not dumb.  It‘s arrogance. 

SPILBOR:  It could well be.  

MAJESKI:  He‘s so convinced that what he‘s doing - I‘m not saying he did this - A person so convinced that what they‘re doing - they‘re not going to get caught in what they‘re doing, they‘re bold about it.  

ABRAMS: Yes.  

SPILBOR:  And what better way to defend yourself by saying, “Why would I help somebody carry out a barrel with a body in it?”

ABRAMS:  Judge Hatchett, you want to get in.  Go ahead.  

HATCHETT:  Well, let‘s talk about this.  Let‘s talk about whole piece of arrogance.  You have a record, clearly, 18 calls to the house, where she complained.  The third wife complained of abuse.  He was never arrested.  And in fact, he was actually charged twice, 18 times over, approximately a two-year period.  Perhaps he didn‘t think he would get caught. 

ABRAMS:  Yes.  Well said.  Yes.

HATCHETT:  And after the third wife, then it was ruled as an accident.  And I would venture to tell you that had the fourth wife not gone missing, that would still be ruled an accident and it have would just been all over.

ABRAMS:  No doubt about it.  No doubt about it.  No doubt about it, Judge Hatchett.  You‘re right on there.

HATCHETT:  So, I believe arrogance and a certain kind of comfort level really may have lulled him into the fourth one.  

ABRAMS:  All right.  Got to wrap it up.  Judge Hatchett, great to have you on the program.  

HATCHETT:  thank you, Dan.  Great to be with you.

ABRAMS:  Bill Majeski and Jonna Spilbor, thank you.

Up next, breaking tonight, the body of a missing college student who apparently led a secret life as an Internet porn star may have just been found.  A nationwide manhunt is underway for the man who may have killed her.  He is apparently traveling with his pregnant 16-year-old girlfriend. 

And on a lighter note, in “Winners and Losers,” The Fonz is back in bronze.



ABRAMS:  We‘ve got breaking news tonight.  After a massive search, police in Kansas believe they have found the body of a missing college student who led a secret double life as an Internet porn star.  The body matches the description of 18-year-old Emily Sander, known in these pictures as Zoey Zane, who poses on the Internet, has shocked her family as revelations about her secret life came out this week. 

At this hour, a nationwide manhunt is under way for 24-year-old suspect Israel Mireles.  He was last seen Friday leaving a bar with Sander.  Police found his motel room covered in blood and the bedspread missing.  According to police, Mireles then picked up his pregnant girlfriend, ditched his rental car more than 300 miles away from Sander‘s hometown. 

On the phone is Kelly Anderson from the “Wichita Eagle.”  All right, Kelly, thanks a lot for taking the time.  We appreciate it.  I understand the police have just held a press conference.  What do we know? 

KELLY ANDERSON, ASSISTANT METRO EDITOR, “WICHITA EAGLE” (on the phone):  Well, basically they found a body about 2:20 this afternoon, about 50 miles away from El Dorado along the stretch of the highway where they expected to find a body.  And they‘re saying that the body matches the description of Emily without saying that this is Emily.  They still have to do an autopsy and they have to do a closer examination before they can determine for sure that this is Emily.  

ABRAMS:  And they‘re calling this guy, Israel, a suspect? 

ANDERSON:  They are now calling him a suspect.  They‘ve been in contact with his family in Vernon, Texas.  Initially, they were having some trouble getting information out of them.  Bu apparently they‘ve been able to get information from them.  They believe he may be headed to Mexico where he also has relatives.  They also are a little fearful for the 16-year-old pregnant girlfriend that he‘s with.  

ABRAMS:  And how do they believe he met her? 

ANDERSON:  They think that she - they probably met at the bar.  They do not believe that they knew each other prior to Friday night.  

ABRAMS:   All right.  Candice DeLong is with us, former FBI profiler.  Bill Majeski is still in the house.  Candice, so now you‘ve this 16-year-old girl with them.  That could provide clues, though, could it not?  That may help them actually find him.  

CANDICE DELONG, FORMER FBI PROFILER:  Yes.  I mean, a 16-year-old pregnant girl is not an easy traveling companion, I‘m guessing.  And, of course, her identity, knowing who she is, gives them more information.  She has roots.  She has family.  She has friends.  And they will be able to provide the police with a lot of leads.  

ABRAMS:  What about the porn site, Candice?  Is there anything that they can provide?  Or has that just become a red herring in the case? 

DELONG:  Well, the police are saying it‘s a red herring.  Of course, there‘s two very, very risky behaviors here that Emily may have engaged in.  One we know is the porn site.  That‘s not a maybe.  That‘s a definite.  And it appears that she met this man, she didn‘t know him, and she leaves a bar with him and ends up - apparently ends up in a hotel room that is bloody and now she‘s dead.  Very high risk for a woman to leave a bar with a man she doesn‘t know.  Also, very high risk to post sexy pictures, let alone nude pictures, of one‘s self on the Internet.  

ABRAMS: And Bill Majeski, she says in one, “Hey, all, I‘m a spunky little teen with super sexy side.  As soon as I turned 18, I started shooting from my site.  I love getting down and dirty in front of the camera.”  Again, the only relevance of this would be if this was the reason for this meeting, right, if they had met via the web site and agreed to meet at this bar.  

MAJESKI:  Yes, it‘s a very real possibility.  My understanding is that her apartment was across the street from where the motel was.  So, if she does the web site out of her apartment, then perhaps there was some kind of an invitation to meet in one place or another place, in the bar.  And then they wound up either in her place or, obviously, the hotel room. 

But the thing is that, if they did not - they‘re not able to identify the body directly as being hers, that tells me that the body is brutalized to the point where they can‘t take a look at the face and say, “Well, that‘s the girl.”  

ABRAMS:  They probably want to be careful too.  I mean, so far, they‘re saying that it matches the description of it.  You know, they always try to do that early on, right? 

MAJESKI:  The thing is that the room was filled with blood.  The sheets are missing.  The body was carried out.  

ABRAMS:  The bed sheet - the bedspread missing as well? 

MAJESKI:  Yes.  

ABRAMS:  All right.  Candice DeLong, Bill Majeski, thanks a lot.  Appreciate it.  If you‘ve seen Israel Mireles or have any information, please call 316-321-1080. 

Up next in “Winners and Losers,” Paris Hilton sets the record straight on drunken elephants.  Party girl Tara Reid celebrates hookers down under.  And teens sensation Ashley Tisdale fakes her big number. 

A blonde heiress who never talked about trunks and beer, a blonde airhead providing call girl cheer, or a blonde singer blowing air at the event of the year?  Which will be tonight‘s big winner or loser?


ABRAMS:  It‘s time for tonight‘s “Winners and Losers” for this 29th day of November, 2007.  Our first winner, Paris Hilton.  The pachyderm-linked princess, falsely reported to have taken up the cause of drunk elephants in India earlier this month, a kooky crusade quickly quashed by her PR team.  But today, finally, Paris went on the record to stuff this junk report in the trunk.  


PARIS HILTON, HEIRESS:  How would an elephant get alcohol in the first place?  Why would I talk about that?  Why would I care if an elephant got drunk?  Can an elephant get drunk?  I‘ve never talked about that in my life.  


ABRAMS:  The pampered party girl piled on the press for making the

story up and added -


HILTON:  I don‘t even know an elephant could get drunk.  


ABRAMS:  Our first loser, drunk party girl Tara Reid, who‘s been cast to host a hard core hooker bash down under.  The stumbling star is scheduled to appear at Australia‘s “21st Annual Hooker‘s Ball” where she‘ll happily play the part, dressing up as a prostitute for the night and judging a wet t-shirt contest.  Does this mean her movie career is over? 

Our second winner, a 6-year-old boy who saved his mom‘s life by calling 911.  Quick thinking Conner Poulki(ph) held a hero tonight for calmly calling the cops after finding his mom passed out in her bed.  


UNIDENTIFIED MALE 911 DISPATCHER:  What‘s wrong with your mommy? 

POULKI(ph):  She is making sounds with her voice and her blood sugar is low.  


Mom Wendy was suffering from high blood pressure at the time.  And was treated at the scene at what is known is the Big Tree Fire Department. 

Our second loser, singer Ashley Tisdale who apparently didn‘t want the pressure of singing in front of a big tree.  The “High School Musical” star sure seemed to be lip synching last night as she belted out a song at the Rockefeller Center tree-lighting special. 

But the big loser of the day?  The Scotland Tourism Board which scrapped its old slogan “The best cold country in the world,” and launched the costly campaign to find the catchiest, most creative replacement.  A six-month search and a quarter million dollars later, they‘ve excitedly announced their winner, “Welcome to Scotland.”  The not very imaginative signs will now be plastered across the nation‘s airports, greeting tourists. 

But the big winner of the day?  The Fonz.  His image may be greeting tourists who arrive in Milwaukee.  The “Happy Days” hunk now being honored by the show‘s adoptive city which plans to erect a life size statue of him downtown. 



HENRY WINKLER, AS “THE FONZ,” IN “HAPPY DAYS”:  Everybody in Milwaukee is going to have to run downtown and jump off the Empire State Building.  

ABRAMS:  Organizers are hocking “Bronze The Fonz” t-shirts to raise the $85,000 needed to put up the statue by next fall. 




ABRAMS:  Here now, Dave Fantle from Visit Milwaukee, the organization raising the money to try to put the Fonzie statue up.  All right.  Thanks a lot for coming on the program. 

I‘ve got to ask you this.  Look, I was a huge “Happy Days” fan as a kid, all right?  But you talk to the people - like some of the younger people in my staff, they don‘t know anything about “Happy Days.”  Why now?  Why, whatever it is, 20 years after the show started on the air?  Why didn‘t you guys put up the statue years ago? 

DAVE FANTLE, “VISIT MILWAUKEE”:  Well, I just think better later than never.  Fonzie is the epitome of cool.  I mean, he‘s a timeless TV classic. 

And you know, Dan, when you say younger audiences don‘t know The Fonz, well, if they watch “Family Guy” they probably know The Fonz a little bit.  If they remember “Pulp Fiction” about 10 years ago, they might remember The Fonz references.  So, he‘s eternally cool, just like the City of Milwaukee.

ABRAMS:  Is this for real, though?  I mean, are you guys really raise

I mean, you know, I think it‘s a great little winner and I‘m very happy here on the show.  But is this for real?  I mean, are you guys really going to put up The Fonz in Milwaukee?  It‘s going to be in the middle of, like, the town square? 

FANTLE:  Well, we have a river walk that‘s just beautiful and it goes through the middle of downtown, and that‘s where we hope to house The Fonz.  And yes, it‘s very real.  We‘ve raised $57,000 of the projected $85,000.  And we‘re hoping your millions of viewers can go to the “Bronze The Fonz” web site and buy these wonderful t-shirts and help us bring The Fonz back home to Milwaukee.  

ABRAMS:  Any of the characters from the show, like Henry Winkler, The Fonz, any of them donating? 

FANTLE:  Well, not yet.  But Henry -

ABRAMS:  Ralph Malph didn‘t donate? 

FANTLE:  We haven‘t found Ralph, we haven‘t found Potsie.


ABRAMS:  They can get in touch with you, right?  If Ralph and Potsie want to talk to you to donate, they can do it, right?  They just have to call first.  

FANTLE:  Or go right to “”

ABRAMS:  Dave Fantle, thanks a lot.  That‘s all the time we have for tonight.  Have a great weekend.



Copy: Content and programming copyright 2007 MSNBC.  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.  Transcription Copyright 2007 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.