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

'Verdict with Dan Abrams' for Wednesday, July 30

Read the transcript to the Wednesday show

Guest: Chrystia Freeland, Roy Sekoff, Michael Walsh, Pam Bondi, Clint Van Zandt, Kim Serafin, Tucker Carlson

DAN ABRAMS, HOST:  Hi, everyone.  Welcome to the show.  Coming to you, once again, live from Los Angeles.

Yes, it has gotten that bad.  John McCain is now actually comparing Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.  And now, even some Republicans are saying in the words of the great Paris Hilton, “That‘s not so hot.”

With us tonight: Tucker Carlson, Chrystia Freeland, and Roy Sekoff.

Today, the McCain camp is trying to use Obama‘s rockstar-like treatment to turn him into a pop prince, comparing him to Britney and Paris in a new TV ad.

The attack is drawing sharp criticism from an unlikely source today, a former McCain strategist who called it, quote, “childish.”  This week alone, McCain has questioned Obama‘s patriotism, accusing him of snubbing the troops while overseas, and implying that Obama would be willing to lose the war in Iraq to win the election.

Obama says, he doesn‘t mind.


SEN. BARACK OBAMA, (D-IL) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  You know, I don‘t pay attention to John McCain ads, although I do notice that he doesn‘t seem to have anything very positive to say about himself, does he?  He seems to only be talking about me.  You need to ask John McCain what he‘s for and not just what he‘s against.


ABRAMS:  McCain is blasted today by two major papers—the “New York Times,” claiming he‘s adopted Karl Rove‘s brand of politics; The “Washington Post” hammering him for making false attacks on Obama in a recent TV ad.

So, the question tonight: What happened to this John McCain?


SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R-AZ) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  Americans want a respectful campaign.  They do, they want it.  Now, people say, “Well, negative ads move numbers.”  They may, but do we have to go to the lowest common denominator?  I don‘t think so.


ABRAMS:  With us tonight: MSNBC senior campaign correspondent, Tucker Carlson; Chrystia Freeland, U.S. managing editor for the “Financial Times”; and, Roy Sekoff founding editor of “Huffington Post.”

All right.  Roy, I think this is sort of a bean ball to set up for you, but, you know, you‘ve now got a lot of the major papers now coming out against McCain.  What do you make of the comparison to Britney and Paris?

ROY SEKOFF, HUFFINGTON POST:  I was going to see who was the first one on the show to say, “Leave Britney alone.”


SEKOFF:  So, I guess that‘s me.  But, you know, it‘s obvious as Obama says that they don‘t have anything positive.  That‘s been clear from the beginning.  So, I expected negativity, but I expected better negativity.

I mean, I feel a little bit like Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men” when he said to Cruise, “Is this all you got?  Please, tell me.”

This is all you got, Britney and Paris and offshore drilling.  It doesn‘t seem very, very good for them.

ABRAMS:  Tucker, does it matter that McCain was the one who said we got to keep this campaign clean?  No negative campaigning, et cetera?

TUCKER CARLSON, MSNBC SR. CAMPAIGN CORRESPONDENT:  Well, it matters in that it shows that McCain can be pompous and silly like a lot of other politicians, including Barack Obama.  I mean, that‘s an absurd statement for him to have made, people almost always vote against.

People are voting for Barack Obama or supporting Barack Obama because they‘re against the Bush administration.  That‘s the nature of politics.  I mean, and there‘s nothing wrong with it and no one ought to apologize for it.  But the sort of outrage among Obama supporters, they‘re attacking Jesus—I mean, how dare they‘re being mean to Barack Obama?

I mean, come on, (INAUDIBLE) look, to point out the fact that he is a little bit light.  That‘s a fair attack.

ABRAMS:  But I think the problem is, when you talk about negative campaigning.  First of all, that they‘ve gotten some of the facts wrong—

I mean, you‘ve got an Obama rep today, backing off on one of the attacks that they made on Obama about not visiting the troops in Germany.

Michael Goldfarb, a McCain blogger, says, “It does now seem that Barack Obama snubbed the troops for reasons other than the lack of photo-op potential.  The initial reports were less clear.”

I mean, that‘s about as much of an apology as you‘re ever going to get in a political campaign from one side to the other.

But, Chrystia, I want to play you this sound.  This is Cindy McCain, again, talking about the fact that their campaign won‘t be going negative.


CINDY MCCAIN, SEN. MCCAIN‘S WIFE:  We‘re going to see a great debate, which the American public deserves, more importantly.  And none of this negative stuff, though, you won‘t see it come out of our side at all.

I believe I can speak for my husband on the same thing.  We‘d rather not win than have to do that.  That‘s not worth winning.


ABRAMS:  Again, look, Cindy McCain is not the candidate here, so we want to be, you know, careful, but she and John McCain issuing the same message which is—we‘re not going to go negative.  We‘re not going to go ugly.  And they have gone—and look, you know, Tucker may be right that it may be fair game, it may be politics, et cetera, but they have gone super-negative in the last week.

CHRYSTIA FREELAND, FINANCIAL TIMES:  I think you‘re right, Dan.  And I think the problem for John McCain is that he used to be the Barack Obama of the Republican Party.  But because of the hand he has been dealt in this particular moment in American politics—unpopular incumbent president, a war, an economic slowdown which may become a recession—really the only shot he has, the only realistic shot he has, as Tucker suggested, is to go negative.

But that‘s really Dangerous for him because it goes against which was probably one of the most appealing things about the McCain brand.  And if you add to that, they haven‘t gone negative really smart.

You know, I thought Tucker did a better job right now slacking for John McCain than John McCain‘s (INAUDIBLE) did.  You know, much better to accuse Obama of being like Jesus than to accuse him of trying to be like Britney Spears.

ABRAMS:  Yes.  Tucker, I want to let you -

CARLSON:  I mean, wait, I‘m hardly slacking for McCain on my part.  But, look, I mean, McCain‘s posture, it seems to me should be pretty simple.

FREELAND:  I thought you did a good job, Tucker.

CARLSON:  He should—right.  He should stand back and play the adult.  And make the case that Chrystia‘s said, where we could be on the brink of some sort of back economic spiral, all these people there who dislike us, and running against a guy who hasn‘t, you know, done all that much—charming and intelligent, although he is.  And wait for Obama to bring himself down.

That‘s essentially McCain‘s only hope is for Obama to self-destruct. 

If he does, McCain wins (ph), if he doesn‘t, he won‘t (ph).

ABRAMS:  But, instead, what they‘ve done is they provided ammo for the Obama camp it put out ads like this.


NARRATOR:  He is practicing the politics of the past.  John McCain.  His attacks on Barack Obama: not true, false, baloney, the low road, baseless.  John McCain: same old politics, same failed policies.


ABRAMS:  You know, Roy, the question, though, is, it does seem like it‘s been a really, a rough couple weeks for John McCain.  Do you think that the polls are showing a move there, though, Roy?

SEKOFF:  Well, I think, you know, we‘re seeing a desperation.  You can see the collective sweat on their upper lip.  You know, like they‘re throwing the Hail Mary pass in the second quarter.

You get the sense, Dan, is that they think, “Wait a minute.  We‘re behind.  Here come the Olympics, right after is going to be the Democratic convention with Obama making the speech on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King‘s “I Have a Dream” speech in front of 90,000 people.”

They‘re getting desperate.  They‘re pulling the rip cord and letting it rip and I think it just shows the desperation on their part.

ABRAMS:  All right.  On the other hand, Obama may have given his critics some ammo to pound him on his perceived, and this is the point that a lot of the critics have been making, is the arrogance issue.

Today, the “Washington Post” picked up the statement he made to fellow House Democrats, quote, “This is the moment the world is waiting for.  I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.”

Since that quote appeared in “The Post,” Obama supporters who claimed it‘s taken out of context, one Democratic staffer who was at the meeting says, quote, “‘The Post‘ left out the important first half of the sentence, “It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, it‘s not about me at all, it‘s about America.  I have just become a symbol.”

Chrystia, a smart comment?

FREELAND:  Well, I think that it was a dangerous comment.  I mean, I would be very careful about accusing Barack Obama of personally being arrogant or personally exhibit hubris, but this area is his Achilles‘ heel and, I think, it‘s not so much about Obama as it is about the really contradictory requirements that Americans have of their president.

On the one hand, they want a superman, a commander-in-chief, the most powerful person in the world; on the other hand, they want an ordinary guy, as we used to say about George W. Bush—the kind of guy you want to have a beer with.  And to be both things is really hard.

ABRAMS:  Well, let me ask you this, Tucker.  If you were advising a campaign, all right, if they said to you, “Tucker, do you think that this is going to fly?  Do you think that we should go and try and paint Barack Obama as arrogant again and again and again?”  What would you say?

CARLSON:  I‘m not sure arrogant is where I‘d go.  I mean, look, this comment, taken out of context or not, is very much like a lot of comments Obama has been making in public for the past year and a half.  We are the ones we‘ve been waiting for.  There‘s a messy inequality to some of his rhetoric and, I guess, my view all along has been, his intelligence is too subtle.  He‘s too sophisticated to, Roy (ph), believe this stuff.  The people around him believe it.

You couldn‘t get to the point where you start to suspect that maybe he‘s got something in common with George W. Bush though.  Maybe he thinks he‘s been ordained by a higher power to transform the world.  I mean, you do sort of—if you listen to Obama every day, do you not?  Do you not get the feeling sometimes that he feels like he is leading this transformative movement that‘s going to change human nature?  I mean, there‘s something kind of creepy (ph) about that, no?

SEKOFF:  Tucker isn‘t that a great thing?  I mean, I just don‘t

understand this idea -

CARLSON:  No, it‘s terrifying, Roy, come on.  Come on, be real.

SEKOFF:  We don‘t want, wait, we don‘t want somebody who‘s confident, we don‘t want somebody who‘s smart and who‘s prepared and, by the way, it wasn‘t taken out of context.  It was the exact opposite of what he was saying.  What he was saying was very much—speaking of humility, “It‘s not about me, it‘s about America.  It‘s about what we have done.”

So, it‘s despicable for Milbank to have taken that out of—to say it‘s the exact opposite of that.

CARLSON:  Roy, deep breath.  Deep breath, Roy.  You -


SEKOFF:  OK.  Here‘s the deep breath.

CARLSON:  (INAUDIBLE) to what Barack Obama said.

SEKOFF:  Here‘s the deep breath, Tucker.

TUCKER:  Look, I‘m not talking for anybody, I‘m just asking you sincerely—does this not sound like things Barack Obama has been saying this entire campaign?  I listened very carefully to him every day and, yes, it sounds a lot like—things I heard him say in person at a dozen different speeches.

ABRAMS:  But -

SEKOFF:  It seems like confidence to me.  I mean, it seems like Joe Namath saying, “We‘re going to win the Super Bowl,” John F. Kennedy saying, “We‘re going to the moon in 10 years.”

ABRAMS:  That‘s what I was going to ask, yes.

SEKOFF:  We went there in eight.  And what we call those people are “American Heroes” not cocky.

CARLSON:  Boy, I mean, OK—there are many differences, yes.

FREELAND:  If I could just, can I -

ABRAMS:  Chrystia, final word on this.  Go ahead.

FREELAND:  Just step in with one final thing.  Political neuropsychologists have found that this sort of comment falls into this really interesting area where if you really love the candidate, this kind of thing makes you love them more and if you don‘t love them, it makes you hate them more.

ABRAMS:  Wait, Chrystia, there are political neuropsychologists?


FREELAND:  There are such people.

ABRAMS:  Really?

FREELAND:  They study our brains as we respond to politicians.

ABRAMS:  Really?


ABRAMS:  All right, look, I‘m not a political insider so I did not know that there were political neuropsychologists that—I don‘t know.  Did you know that, Tucker?

CARLSON:  I did.  In fact, I‘m related to someone that does that stuff.

ABRAMS:  Really?  All right.

CARLSON:  Yes, they exist.

ABRAMS:  It‘s fascinating.

FREELAND:  Our emotions -

ABRAMS:  Tucker Carlson, Chrystia Freeland, Roy Sekoff—thanks, appreciate it.

FREELAND:  Pleasure.

ABRAMS:  Coming up, the House Judiciary Committee votes to hold Karl Rove in contempt.  So, what happens to Rove now?

We‘ll ask a judiciary committee member and Republican congressman who thinks Rove should be forced to testify.

And new details in the search for two-year-old Caylee Anthony.  Her mother waited a month to report her missing.  It appears she wasn‘t staying home during that time.  New photos show her out at a club just days after Caylee disappeared.

Plus: Government background checks missed hundreds of employees—some with top secret security clearance who bought fake college degrees.  Another reason Why America Hates Washington is coming up in 60 seconds.


ABRAMS:  Tonight‘s edition of Why America Hates Washington: The federal government failing to check the credentials of its employees.  Hundreds work in the military, government, education—allegedly bought phony degrees from a diploma-mill in Spokane, Washington.  The list includes workers at various institutions including the CIA, the NSA, and—even NASA?

The Spokane-based paper, the “Spokesman Review” has published the names and according to the paper, some had top-secret clearance.  One is a senior military adviser working in the White House.

The government buying phony resumes from people who bought phony degrees: Another reason Why America Hates Washington.

We‘re back with Congress, the House Judiciary Committee voting to hold Karl Rove in contempt.  Coming up.


ABRAMS:  Breaking tonight: More Bush League Justice.  The House Judiciary Committee voted to hold Karl Rove in contempt today after Rove defied a subpoena to appear before the committee investigating the politization of the Justice Department and whether Rove played a role in the prosecution of prominent Democrat Don Siegelman, the former governor of Alabama.

This comes at a day after another damning Justice Department report showed that Bush appointees in the Justice Department broke the law, like trying to hire only loyal Republicans for what were supposed to be non-political jobs.

Now, all eyes are on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and whether a contempt vote against Rove will be brought before the full House of Representatives.

Joining me now: a member of the House Judiciary Committee, Democratic representative, Linda Sanchez; and, a Republican representative, Walter Jones, who is at odds with many of his fellow Republicans, because he, too, believes that Rove must be forced to testify.

Thanks to both of you for coming on.  Appreciate it.

All right.  Representative Sanchez, you‘ve all now voted to hold Karl Rove in contempt.  What happens now?

REP. LINDA SANCHEZ, (D-CA) HOUSE JUDICIARY CMTE.:  Well, the full judiciary committee voted today to hold him in contempt and that will now move to the House, the full House for a vote, hopefully in September.

ABRAMS:  And what is the goal here?  I mean, obviously—look, the goal is to force Rove to testify, but as you know, there have been other cases that have been working their way through the courts.  Some people have said that Congress should act on its own and should literally haul Karl Rove to jail if he continues to refuse to testify.

Any chance that that would happen?

SANCHEZ:  It‘s possible.  Under the contempt order that was issued today, there was a provision that any legal means necessary be employed to force him to testify—which could include the inherent contempt powers of Congress—which would mean, yes, he would be arrested and held in jail, and that there would be a trial on the House of Representatives.  It‘s not something that‘s been taken off the table.  So, it is a possibility.

ABRAMS:  Do you want that to happen?

SANCHEZ:  Personally, I would love to see that happen—whether or not we‘ll get that is another question entirely.

ABRAMS:  Yes.  All right.  Representative Jones, look, it was—based on party lines here, the vote in the judiciary committee, but it sounds like you‘re someone who believes that Rove should be forced to testify, correct?

REP. WALTER JONES, (R-NC) BELIEVES ROVE SHOULD TESTIFY:  Dan, I do.  Let me remind you and those watching the show that in the year 2000 when President Bush was a candidate, he said many times in debate, he would bring dignity to the White House.  This would be a great start if Karl Rove would come before the judiciary committee and let him be explained his involvement, if any, in this Don Siegelman case.

ABRAMS:  Are you getting heat from some of your colleagues?  I mean, as a Republican who‘s putting the heat on Karl Rove?

JONES:  Dan, I am not for this reason.  I am a man who believes that the importance to a democracy to our republic is trust—public trust and accountability.

ABRAMS:  Look, I agree with you on that.  That‘s been my argument all along.  I don‘t think this should be based on party lines, but I‘ve got to believe that you‘re one of a handful of Republicans willing to take that principled position.

JONES:  Well, Dan, let me say this—I have only one person to answer to and that‘s my God one day in my life.

ABRAMS:  OK.  What do you think about the notion that if Karl Rove—look, you know Karl Rove‘s not coming, right?  He‘s not going to come unless he is absolutely forced to testify.  This is now—maybe in September that the House will vote to hold him in contempt, then it continues to work its way through the courts.

Do you think that Congress should act on its own as Representative Sanchez believes that they should, and literally haul Karl Rove in themselves?

JONES:  Well, let me say this, Dan.  I was one of those Republicans who I voted for four articles of impeachment with Bill Clinton.  I did everything to bring the truth out as it related to President Clinton at the time.  I feel the same way that Karl Rove has an obligation to come to the judiciary committee—excuse me—and tell what he knows about the Don Siegelman case.

ABRAMS:  But he‘s not coming.  So, do you think that, knowing he‘s not coming, should Congress use its inherent power and haul him in, possibly put him into jail?

JONES:  Whatever authority the Congress has, we need to uphold the institution.

ABRAMS:  So, it sounds like you‘re saying that you, too, think that that should be a real option here?

JONES:  I think we should uphold the institution and integrity of the House of Representatives.

ABRAMS:  Let me read, though, what Nancy Pelosi said, Representative Sanchez.  She said, “Congress will assess the contempt charge against Karl Rove passed by the House Judiciary Committee today and an informed decision about how to move forward will be made in September.”

What is the reluctance, if any, do you think on the part of the House to hold Rove in contempt?

SANCHEZ:  Well, you know, in talking with my colleagues, I‘m not sensing reluctance.  The factual situation is the following—we have a very short amount of time left in the term in which to conclude a number of legislative projects.  And the problem becomes one of, you know, what takes priority and, you know, what are they going to schedule in September.

And, you know, I understand that this is something that I would love to see move forward in September, but the reality is, there are a lot of competing projects that are of very huge importance to the American public and so, you know, in September, the speaker is going to make a decision.

ABRAMS:  The bottom line, the bottom line—it sounds to me like bottom line is—you don‘t think anything is going to happen any time soon.

SANCHEZ:  I don‘t know that for sure.  We won‘t know until September when they assess what needs to take precedence in the House.

ABRAMS:  All right.  Representative Linda Sanchez and Representative Walter Jones, thank you both very much for coming on the program.  Appreciate it.

JONES:  Thank you.

SANCHEZ:  My pleasure.

ABRAMS:  Coming up: New details in the case of the little (ph) girl whose mother waited a month to report her missing.  Now someone in the same jail with two-year-old Caylee‘s mom says she told him where Caylee is.

And: FOX News at it again, using the name of Barack Obama during a story about Osama bin Laden, on the screen—that‘s next in Beat the Press.

What‘s your VERDICT?  E-mail us at:  Your e-mails are in the -P.O.‘ed box at the end of the show.  Be sure to include your name and where you‘re writing from.

Back in a moment.


ABRAMS:  It‘s time for tonight‘s Beat the Press: Our daily look back at media hypocrisy, agenda and the amusing perils of live TV.

First up: They did it again.  This morning on “FOX and Friends,” another Obama reference on the screen when talking about Osama bin Laden.  Check out the bottom of the screen.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE ANCHOR:  And Osama bin Laden wanted to be introduced to America through a TV interview just two months before al Qaeda bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (INAUDIBLE).


ABRAMS:  I get the mistakes on air when people misspeak, but over there, you have to wonder when there‘s something subconscious about it.

Next up: One might think we‘re part of that right-wing conspiracy as well, after we labeled indicted Republican senator, Ted Stevens, as a Democrat last night.

We‘re going to call out others for making a similar mistake.  We got to own up to our own.

Finally: Newspapers occasionally make typos and then post a correction.  But one newspaper in New Hampshire, the “Valley News,” had a typo that probably takes the cake, they misspelled their own name on the front page, with this masthead as “Valley Newss,” with two “S‘s.”

The next day they issue this correction, “Given that we routinely call another institutions to hold themselves accountable for their mistakes, let us say for the record: we sure feel silly—silly with one “S.”

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

Up next: New developments in the case of the two-year-old whose mother waited a month to report her missing.  New photos show Casey Anthony at a nightclub just five days after she claims Caylee disappeared.

And later: Britney Spears apparently responsible for a paparazzi recession since she clean up her act?  Revenue is down.  It‘s in Winners & Losers—coming up later.



ABRAMS:  Welcome back.  New details in the search for missing two-year-old Caylee Anthony.  A man who was in the same jail as Caylee‘s mom, Casey, says he spoke to her yesterday about where her daughter is. 


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  She was talking to a couple people, but I asked her in the holding cell, “What did you do with your baby?”  She said, I didn‘t do nothing.  My ex-boyfriend has her.” 


ABRAMS:  Wow.  We‘ll have more on this development a little later. 

But first, photos of Casey Anthony at a club in Orlando has surfaced.  These pictures were allegedly taken at a club called Fusion on June 20th, five days after she had claimed that Caylee vanished. 

Here now is Casey Anthony‘s attorney, Michael Walsh, Florida prosecutor Pam Bondi and MSNBC analyst, former FBI profiler, Clint Van Zandt.  Thanks to all of you for coming on.  Appreciate it.

All right.  Mr. Walsh, let me start with you.  These pictures are not good news for your client.  Photos coming out from June the 20th, many days after presumably Caylee had disappeared. 

MICHAEL WALSH, CASEY ANTHONY‘S ATTORNEY:  Well, I‘ve seen the photos now.  I saw them for the first time last night and I can understand why people think that.  But there is a larger picture to this and the exact date that little Caylee ended up missing.  We‘re simply going to disclose that only to law enforcement efforts.  So I‘m not trying to dodge your question, Dan, but it‘s just that kind of information needs to be given solely to the prosecution and the law enforcement agents. 

ABRAMS:  But is it fair to say then, that the information that had been given to the law enforcement authorities had been lies? 

WALSH:  No, I wouldn‘t classify them as lies.  I would classify them

as -

ABRAMS:  Inaccurate? 

WALSH:  Inaccurate.  Yes. 

ABRAMS:  Inaccurate information given by Casey? 

WALSH:  Well, I‘d like to hear the exact statement.  In other words, I‘ve seen what‘s written in the police report.  I haven‘t seen the statements that she has given to law enforcement.  So I don‘t want to speculate as to what the cops say she said.  I‘d rather hear it for myself. 

ABRAMS:  All right.  So without getting - I understand that you don‘t want to get too detailed here.  But let‘s just - let me ask you a basic question.  We‘re looking at photos right now of her out partying, all right?  At that point, when those photos were taken on June 20th, did she know where Caylee was?  Did she have Caylee in her possession? 

WALSH:  That‘s a question I‘m going to have to save for law enforcement.  I don‘t mean to dodge it.  It really needs to be given to them. 

ABRAMS:  Clint, what do you make of that? 

CLINT VAN ZANDT, FORMER FBI PROFILER:  It sounds like we‘re playing dodge ball here.  You know, Dan, we‘ve been working with this thing for weeks and weeks now.  Last night, Mr. Walsh was on one of the talk shows and said not only was she a kidnap victim, but she was taken by multiple people.  Well, Dan, if there is this gang of kidnappers out there that Mr.  Walsh and his client believe not only have Caylee, but may be capable of taking other children, why doesn‘t he grab his client by the nap of the shirt, sit her down with the sheriff and tell them what they know to save Caylee and to protect other children? 

ABRAMS:  Mr. Walsh?

WALSH:  Tell him to come over to the office and we‘ll do it tonight. 

ABRAMS:  All right. 

WALSH:  I don‘t know how to make it any clearer than that. 

ABRAMS:  All right.  I mean, look.  The problem - Clint, I wanted to pause to give Clint another opportunity.  Let me do this - we just got another phone call in.  We just got this in.  Another phone call of Casey with her brother, one of the prison phone calls and - let‘s play it. 



CASEY ANTHONY, CAYLEE ANTHONY‘S MOTHER:  Hey.  How‘s everything going? 

LEE ANTHONY:  It‘s going okay.  How‘s everything going with you? 

CASEY ANTHONY:  Good.  Just took a shower, figured I‘d call in and check in and say hi since I got a chance to see mom and dad this morning. 

LEE ANTHONY:  If there‘s ever anything particularly that I should look into, or stuff to follow up on or anything. 

CASEY ANTHONY:  Yes, I will definitely let you know if things come up, if anything does at all.


ABRAMS:  You know, Pam Bondi, my problem is that the timeline seems to be shifting, right?  First it was the 9th of June that Caylee went missing.  Then the 15th of June that she‘s gone missing.  And now that these new photos show up from the 20th of June, it sounds like and - look, I‘m not blaming Mr. Walsh.  He‘s an attorney here.  He‘s got to be very careful about what he says.  But he sure sounds like he‘s suggesting that the timeline may even be later than that.  My problem is that - who‘s giving this timeline?  It‘s got to be coming from Casey Anthony herself. 

PAM BONDI, FLORIDA PROSECUTOR:  Sure it is, Dan.  And again, like you said, to defend Mr. Walsh, he‘s representing his client.  He is only saying what she told him and what she‘s given him the authority to repeat.  Yes, from day one, we‘ve all been told what this timeline is from Casey, from her mother, from her family. 

Your daughter should be the most important thing in the world to you.  This little girl has been missing this long, you remember when she went missing.  And in my opinion, Casey has zero credibility, but if anybody thinks she has any credibility, it is completely gone after viewing these photographs.  No mother in the world would be out there with a missing child.  I mean, I pray - I think we all pray she‘s alive, something happened and that she‘s out there somewhere.  But, you know what?  No mother in the world should act like that. 

ABRAMS:  All right.  Because if, if the timeline as we knew it was correct, which is June 15th, Caylee is missing.  And on June 20th, she‘s out partying like that, this is going to be very incriminating evidence against her, right, Pam? 

BONDI:  Oh, Dan, absolutely.  I mean, it already is.  And I mean, I think that‘s why the prosecutors have had her in jail to begin with because of all the lies that she‘s told.  That‘s why the judge wouldn‘t reduce her bond.  And now, given this, I mean, any mother in the world knows when they lost track of their child, no matter what happened - we don‘t know what happened.  But, yes, this is evidence that is probably the most damaging evidence that I‘ve seen yet, given the timeline that we know. 

ABRAMS:  All right, Clint, now that you‘ve had a chance to gather your thoughts in response to Mr. Walsh, go ahead.  I‘ll give you another shot.  Go ahead.

VAN ZANDT:  Not withstanding that conversations like this are the reasons why people are really upset with defense attorneys who help clients hide behind things like this, number two, we listened to these phone conversations, Dan.  Why doesn‘t this woman start out, “Have you heard anything about my daughter?  What‘s going on?  How‘s the investigation going?  What have you found out about her?”  She starts messing around about, “Oh, yes.  I lost one phone and lost another cell phone and I don‘t know where the SIM card is.”  How about, “Where the heck is my daughter and why aren‘t the cops out looking?”  And the obvious response to that is, “Because, lady, you haven‘t helped them find out what happened to your daughter.” 

ABRAMS:  Here‘s some more of those phone calls and this is with family members challenging Casey about what she knows. 


CINDY ANTHONY, MOTHER OF CASEY ANTHONY:  I don‘t know what your involvement is, sweetheart.  You‘re not telling me where she‘s at.

CASEY ANTHONY:  Because I don‘t (EXPLETIVE DELETED) know where she‘s at.  Are you kidding me?

CINDY ANTHONY:  Casey, don‘t waste your call to scream and holler at me.

CASEY ANTHONY:  No!  Waste my call sitting in the jail in this bunk?

CINDY ANTHONY:  Whose fault is you sitting in the jail?  You‘re blaming me you‘re sitting in the jail?  Blame yourself for telling lies.



LEE ANTHONY:  We‘re going to find out something.  Whatever is going on, it‘s going to be found out.  So why not do it now?  Save yourself.

CASEY ANTHONY:  There‘s nothing to find out.  There‘s absolutely nothing to find out.  That‘s even what I told the detectives.

LEE ANTHONY:  Well, you know, everything you‘ve been telling us is a lie.

CASEY ANTHONY:  I have no clue where Caylee is.  If I knew where Caylee is, do you think any of this would be happening?  No.



UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE FRIEND OF CASEY ANTHONY:  How come everybody‘s saying that you‘re not upset, that you‘re not crying, that you showed no caring of where Caylee is at all?

CASEY ANTHONY:  Because I‘m not sitting here (EXPLETIVE DELETED) crying every two seconds, because I have to stay composed to talk to detectives, to make other phone calls, to do other things.  I can‘t sit here and be crying every two seconds like I want to.  I can‘t.



LEE ANTHONY:  Do you think Caylee‘s OK right now?

CASEY ANTHONY:  In my gut she‘s still OK and it still feels like she‘s close to home.


ABRAMS:  Mr. Walsh, what does she mean by, “There‘s nothing to find out”?  I mean, she says in one of those tapes, “There‘s nothing to find out.” 

WALSH:  Because, at this point, obviously, Casey knows that the only scope of this investigation is to prosecute her, not find the child. 

VAN ZANDT:  Oh, no.

WALSH:  Wait, let me finish. 

BONDI:  Ridiculous. 

WALSH:  And she knows -

VAN ZANDT:  That‘s -

ABRAMS:  Let him finish.  I‘ll let you guys beat up on him in a second.  Let him finish.

VAN ZANDT:  Bogus. 

WALSH:  If the scope of this investigation is to find a missing child, then stop releasing it to the press and come out and talk to her.  I don‘t care if she lied to you once or 10,000 times, you‘re a paid public servant.  Come back out and talk to her again. 

But all this lambasting her hasn‘t taken one step further in finding Casey, and law enforcement - everybody else puts all the onus on Casey.  She doesn‘t know where her daughter is. 

ABRAMS: Yes, I - real quick, Pam.  And then I‘ve got to take a break. 

VAN ZANDT:  She‘s the one who gave her daughter to somebody.  She the one who knows what happened and it‘s about time somebody set her down and said - her counsel sets her down and says, “Young lady, if you know anything about this, tell law enforcement to include every movement you made for the last 45 days.” 

ABRAMS:  All right.  Everyone‘s going to stay with us because we‘ve got more on this case.  Her ex-boyfriend - Casey‘s ex-boyfriend, the mother‘s ex-boyfriend - did she tell a fellow inmate that he had her?  And what about that babysitter Casey has also said took Caylee? 

And the earth was moving here in L.A. yesterday while the tape was rolling.  “Reality Bites” coming up in 60 seconds.  Yes, that‘s Judge Judy.


ABRAMS:  Now, to “Reality Bites,” a dose of reality caught on tape.  Yesterday‘s 5.4 earthquake in California rattled millions, including those present for a taping of “Judge Judy.”  She left the bench and took cover while others fled the room.  Over at “Family Court” with Judge Penny, the shaking sent Judge Penny, the plaintiff and the defendant under their desks.  It also created a bit of drama at the “Big Brother 10” house in Studio City. 


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE  Oh, my god, this is so scary.  Tell him to go (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Come outside. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  It‘s an earthquake.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Get outside.  Oh my god, the door is moving. 


ABRAMS:  I admit it, I was scared, too.  We‘ll be right back.


ABRAMS:  Welcome back, continuing our coverage of new developments in the disappearance of 2-year-old Caylee Anthony.  Caylee‘s mother, Casey, being held now for child endangerment and lying to police.  Now, a fellow inmate says Casey told him she knows where Caylee is. 


UNIDENTIFIED MALE, FORMER INMATE OF CASEY ANTHONY:  She was talking to a couple people, but I asked her in the holding cell, “What did you do with your baby?”  She said, “I didn‘t do nothing.  My ex-boyfriend has her.” 


ABRAMS:  All right.  Even this former inmate isn‘t sure he believes Casey and even he seems disturbed by her behavior. 


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER:  Do you think she‘s telling you the truth? 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE INMATE:  Not if she was smiling.  She was smiling the whole way. 


ABRAMS:  All right,  Now, originally, Casey said she had left the baby with a nanny.  Again, joining me is Michael Walsh, Casey Anthony‘s attorney, prosecutor Pam Bondi and Clint Van Zandt. 

All right.  Mr. Walsh, again, another, it seems, piece of bad news for your client.  What do you make of this former inmate‘s comment?

WALSH:  Dan, if you believe that guy, I‘ve got an ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.  They don‘t house men and women in the holding cells together.  I mean, the guy is lying. 

ABRAMS:  So he could not have asked her through any sort of bars. 

You‘re saying it‘s just totally invented. 

WALSH:  Yes, men and women are separated.  They‘re not across from each other.  They separate them.  They‘re housed differently.  He never talked to Casey.  That never happened. 

ABRAMS:  The jail did say - did confirm that he walked by her jail cell.  So, you know that, right? 

WALSH:  And that‘s trust - so he walks by a jail cell and the jail is not going to let him strike up a conversation with somebody in the holding cell. 

ABRAMS:  Yes.  Here‘s the problem, all right.  Here‘s another problem for you, one of many that seem to be building up here, all right?  June 25th, this is her former boyfriend, all right.  This is the former boyfriend.  Casey‘s former boyfriend says that - this is according to the Orange County sheriff‘s affidavit. 

“Jessie Grund mentioned that Casey is a habitual liar.  He told me that on June 25th - June 25th - he received a call from the defendant.  She told him she was free this weekend if he wanted to get together.  They used to date.  She said that Caylee was with the nanny and they had gone to the beach for the weekend.” 

Now, is this guy lying, too? 

WALSH:  Yes.  He‘s been fired from his Sheriff‘s Department for psychological issues.  You should take a look in this guy‘s background.  Serious issues with this guy. 

ABRAMS:  All right.  So we‘ve got - all the people that we‘ve got.  This guy, this former inmate - he‘s lying, right?  We‘ve got this - is the boyfriend lying here or the sheriff or the person in the sheriff‘s department? 

WALSH:  I don‘t know at this point.  I have to examine them both. 

ABRAMS:  All right.  Pam, this is when it gets tough, right?  When the stories start piling up, when the pictures show up, again, from the 20th of June.  And you‘ve got people coming forward all offering stories, which are inconsistent with Casey‘s. 

BONDI:  Uh-uhm.

ABRAMS:  Right? 

BONDI:  Dan, absolutely. 

ABRAMS:  You don‘t have to answer it.  You can just say, “uh-uhm” and I‘ll - it is somewhat self-evident, right?

BONDI:  Dan, certainly it is.  Certainly it is.  I lost you there for a second.  Now, you know, less than 24 hours ago we have Casey through her attorney telling you, what, that she didn‘t come forward because she was scared and she was threatened and she was frightened.  Well, we now obviously know that‘s not true from seeing these pictures of her. 

And to defend law enforcement in this, listen, any time a child is missing, these law enforcement officers get very, very emotionally involved.  Clint will tell you this.  Any law enforcement officer - their goal is to find that child.  And the more time that goes by, the tougher it‘s going to be.  Not only did she wait that long to report it, now, she‘s still telling story after story after story.  And it‘s not Mr. Walsh‘s fault.  He‘s just repeating what his client has authorized him to say and that‘s his job.  But this woman is not cooperating with police and, as you said, now we have, what, three more stories.

ABRAMS:  All right.  Clint, so in your professional opinion -

VAN ZANDT:  Yes.  Yes.

ABRAMS:  What is going on here?

VAN ZANDT:  Well, we listened to a lot of narcissistic nonsense when we listened to this woman talk.  Listen, Dan, I worked enough kidnappings as an FBI agent and, unfortunately, had to tell parents their child was dead and was never coming home again.  I‘ve seen the emotion that should be there.  I don‘t know how many kidnappings Mr. Walsh has been connected with, but what we see right now is behavior that is unlike anything I‘ve ever seen before of an innocent victim who has lost a child. 

And Dan, bottom line, if she‘s afraid - if she is afraid for herself, her brother, her parents, I guarantee you the authorities will put them in protective custody if she‘ll just tell what happened to that little girl. 

ABRAMS:  I‘ve got to wrap it up.  I want to give Mr. Walsh the final word here since he‘s been getting sort of beaten up on all ends here.  Mr.  Walsh, do you want the final word on this? 

WALSH:  Maybe we can have him come out of retirement and come down and solve this case with all the years of experience. 

VAN ZANDT:  Yes.  You and I will work together, buddy, because you‘re doing a great job so far. 

WALSH:  Maybe we can get together and waterboard Casey while we‘re at it, huh? 

VAN ZANDT:  Looks like you‘ve got the experience, pal. 

ABRAMS:  All right.  Enough, I thought I was going to be nice and give

Mr. Walsh a final -

WALSH:  I‘m sorry, Dan. 

ABRAMS:  It‘s all right. 

VAN ZANDT:  But still, he wouldn‘t be nice. 

ABRAMS:  It‘s OK.  It‘s OK.  You know what?  The conflict - nice one, everyone - you know, we‘re all discussing this in a civil way here.  Michael Walsh, Pam Bondi, Clint Van Zandt, thanks very much. 

But I know that everyone would agree that the most important thing is if you‘ve got any information about Caylee‘s whereabouts, please call the Orange County Sheriff‘s at 1-800-423-TIPS.

Up next, will tonight‘s winner or loser be good girl Britney Spears not flashing as much leg, that‘s meant bad news for the paparazzi; murder suspect Phil Spector flashing an Obama pin at a hearing which can‘t be good news for Obama; or “Sesame Street,” the oldie but goodie show offering up some flashy gifts for their new season? 

Plus your E-mail in the “P.O.‘d Box.”  We‘ll be right back.


ABRAMS:  It‘s time for tonight‘s “Winners and Losers.”  Back with me tonight is Kim Serafin, senior editor at “In Touch Weekly” magazine. 

First up, did Britney Spears single handedly put scores of freelance photographers out of work?  The L.A. Times” reports today that at the height of her meltdown, Britney accounted for 20 percent of L.A.‘s paparazzi business.  She could almost always be counted on to attack an SUV with an umbrella or at least flash a little underwear getting out of a car.  But lately, she‘s cleaned up her act which means tough times for the paparazzi.  Agencies have been forced to downsize their Britney teams and photos that once sold for thousands are apparently going for a fraction of that. 

All right.  So Kim, Britney‘s clearly a - do you really believe this?  I mean, 20 percent, that big a percentage? 

KIM SERAFIN, SENIOR EDITOR, “IN TOUCH WEEKLY”:  You didn‘t mention the pink wig and you didn‘t mention the British accent and the 4:00 a.m.  shopping trips and, you know, changing her outfits constantly because the paparazzi needed new photos.  If she changed her outfit every hour because she‘d go out, I definitely think - I mean, you remember those shots of her, you know, being followed by 30 photographers. 

Plus, you remember she was dating one of the paparazzi.  She had another manager, Sam Lutfi, who was very interested in the paparazzi and would welcome them wherever they went and tell them where they‘re going.  You know, the winner was the drivers in L.A., because, I‘ll tell you, I would see, you know, on the TV they would show where Britney is driving.  I was like, “I drive that intersection all the time.” 

ABRAMS:  And as I mentioned, I think Ed McMahon is a winner here because she‘s apparently moving out of the neighborhood. 

Next up, Barack Obama earning an unlikely and likely unwanted celebrity endorsement from none other than murder suspect Phil Spector.  The eccentric music producer, set to be retried for second degree murder this fall, showed up to a Los Angeles court hearing yesterday sporting a large “Barack Obama Rocks” pin. 

You know, Kim, I tried to go through thing and think who you would want less than Phil Spector. 


ABRAMS:  It isn‘t like, “I support Barack Obama.”  It is like Phil Spector trying to use his, like, music background.

SERAFIN:  Exactly.

ABRAMS:  He rocks, baby.  What was he, the wall of sound?  I went through, you know, some other important Obama endorsements.  He got the Karate Kid; he got Ralph Macchio.  That‘s another one that you got to ask yourself, do you want that?  Of course, McCain has Wilfred Brimley and Heidi Montag.  So -

SERAFIN:  That‘s right.  That‘s right.  Heidi Montag from “The Hills.” I mean, this is when Barack Obama would say, “Please play the Britney-Paris commercial.  Play it.  Play it!  No, they support me.”  This is when he wants their endorsement more -

ABRAMS:  Hulk Hogan is also an Obama supporter.  Finally, “Sesame Street,” not just for kids anymore.  The PBS institution gearing up for its 39th season, still features a slew of adult celebrities and grownup television references.  Here‘s a clip from the highlight reel. 


JACK BLACK, ACTOR:  What‘s the word on the street? 

UNIDENTIFIED ACTRESS:  What‘s the word? 


UNIDENTIFIED ACTRESS:  What‘s the word? 


BLACK:  The word is disguise. 

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR:  Bond‘s the name, James Bond. 

UNIDENTIFIED ACTRESS:  What‘s the word? 



ABRAMS:  Heidi Klum, Kim Cattrall, parodies of the hit shows “30 Rock” and “Arrested Development.”  Is this still a kid‘s show? 

SERAFIN:  Yes.  Well, they‘re from pre-school musical which - I love that one.  But yes, this is for the parents, obviously, who sit there with their kids and watch it.  Hopefully, the kids don‘t know who Kim Cattrall is, from “Sex and the City.”  So that‘s for the parents, definitely.

ABRAMS:  They‘re just watching.


ABRAMS:  Kim Serafin, good to see you. 

SERAFIN:  Thank you very much. 

ABRAMS:  It‘s time for the “P.O.‘d Box.”  Some of you went after me for saying I thought it was a mistake for Obama to say that he has a, quote, “good chance at winning the election.” 

Mau from Atlanta, “The point you made about Obama saying his chances are good to win the presidency being a loss for him is wrong.  Each candidate, even in the primaries, said when they became president, they would do this or that.  Is that also being presumptuous or confident?” 

Zachary in Cleveland, “What would you have Obama say?  ‘I‘m not sure we can win?‘  Your commentary and score of ‘lose‘ was unfair in the extreme.” 

Look, guys, I just wouldn‘t have him handicap his chances at all.  He‘s ahead in the polls.  Leave that to the pundits and the pollsters.  I just think allowing McCain to become the underdog could be dangerous for Obama.  That‘s all. 

That‘s all the time we have for tonight.  You can E-mail me about the show at  Please include your name and where you‘re writing from.  I‘ll see you back here tomorrow from Los Angeles.  You can also catch me on “The Jimmy Kimmel Show” tomorrow night from Los Angeles.  I‘ll see you tomorrow.  Have a good night. 



Content and programming copyright 2008 MSNBC.  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.  Transcription Copyright 2008 ASC LLC 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 ASC LLC‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.