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

The Ed Show for Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Read the transcript to the Tuesday show

Guests: Van Jones, Patrick McDonald, Mike Papantonio, Rep. Jim McDermott,
Dave Weigel

ED SCHULTZ, HOST: Good evening, Americans. And welcome to THE ED
SHOW tonight from New York.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg`s sneak attack on "Occupy Wall Street" has the
99 percent on fire. The New York City mayor tried to block the media from
covering the raid, but Bloomberg failed. THE ED SHOW had a producer on
scene and you will see her exclusive video right here.

This is THE ED SHOW -- let`s get to work.


SCHULTZ (voice-over): First, Oakland. Then, Portland. St. Louis.
Denver. And now, New York.

MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, NEW YORK: The final decision to act was
mine, and mine alone.

SCHULTZ: Breaking news on what may be a coordinated national effort
to shut down the 99 percent movement.

Tonight, Laura Flanders on the latest from Zuccotti Park, and Van
Jones on where the 99 percent movement goes from here.

It`s the interview everyone is talking about.

BOB COSTAS, NBC NEWS: Are you denying that you had any inappropriate
sexual contact with any of these underage boys?


SCHULTZ: Tonight, a victim`s advocate responds to former Penn State
coaches Jerry Sandusky and Mike McQueary.

Newt Gingrich is leading nationally and in a four-way tie in Iowa.
We`ll see if Hannity can drag him over the finish line.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS: And you gave advice to Freddie Mac and they
did not take it?


SCHULTZ: And Herman Cain explains his "oops" moment, with a three-
word response. We`ll bring it to you.


SCHULTZ: Good to have you with us tonight, folks.

Occupy Wall Street protesters have returned to Lower Manhattan this
evening. It`s been an eventful 24 hours. An early morning raid on the
encampment flushed all of the occupiers out of Zuccotti Park and there are
reports the crackdown may have been part of a national effort to end the

New York City`s heavy handed tactics may have made the movement
stronger tonight. The unexpected raid was accompanied by a media blackout.
Nobody allowed in. Hundreds of uniformed police in riot gear physically
removed the occupants of Zuccotti Park and stopped reporters from getting
close to the scene.

News helicopters normally flying over the city were prevented from
flying in the airspace above the park. This is one of the few shots
showing the evacuation as it happened last night.

Now, protesters documented the events on their cell phone cameras.
Several members of the media were arrested. A member of the city council
was injured and arrested when he arrived at the scene.

Now, this morning, a Manhattan Supreme Court judge signed a temporary
order to allow protesters to return to the park with their tents. The
decision then overruled by another Supreme Court judge saying the city has
the right to keep protesters from camping out in the park.

Now, this evening, police sources confirm protesters will be allowed
24/7 access to the park. They can`t camp out and they can`t bring in
equipment, but they are there at this hour.

Elected officials and labor leaders quickly got behind the 99 percent
on the crackdown. Congressman Jerry Nadler of New York who represents the
neighborhood released this statement saying, "The city`s actions to shut
down `Occupy Wall Street` last night raise a number of serious civil
liberties questions that must be answered."

And there`s more from labor. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said
labor organizations stand in solidarity with the protesters. He said the
raid was orchestrated by politicians acting on behalf of the 1 percent.

"The Occupy Wall Street movement has been committed to peaceful
nonviolent action from its inception and it will keep spreading no matter
what elected officials tell police to do." That is a big statement.

The elected official in question in this city is Mayor Michael
Bloomberg, who said the raid was his decision and his decision alone.


BLOOMBERG: Some argued to allow the protesters to stay in the park
indefinitely. Others had suggested that we just wait for winter and hope
the cold weather drove the protesters away. But inaction was not an
option. We could not wait for someone in the park to get killed or to
injure another first responder before acting.


SCHULTZ: When Bloomberg was asked what specific lawless acts prompted
the evacuation, he couldn`t come up with any.


BLOOMBERG: There have been a number of everyday small accusations,
which are hard to prove when the police can`t even get there to see what`s
really going on.


SCHULTZ: Small accusations that are hard to prove? New York City is
just the latest in a series of protest crackdowns across the country. It`s
an orchestrated effort. Occupy Oakland`s protest, they were broken up
again yesterday. Occupy Portland in Oregon, protests, they were raided the
previous day.

Over the weekend, movements in Salt Lake City, Denver, St. Louis and
Burlington, Vermont, were also disbanded by law enforcement.

The mayor of Oakland appeared to imply the crackdowns are being
coordinated nationwide during a radio interview with the BBC.


MAYOR JEAN QUAN, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA: I was recently on a conference
call of 18 cities across the country who had the same situation where it
started as a political movement and the political encampment ended up being
an encampment that was no longer in control of the people who started them.


SCHULTZ: Any attempt to end the movement hasn`t slowed down the 99
percenters. Protesters in New York are already back at the original
encampment and they say they`ll continue to stay there, tents or no tents.


REPORTER: Was this a preemptive strike?

DANIEL LEVINE, PROTESTER: I assume so. It was really badly
calculated because it`s only going to galvanize us. We`re only going to be
stronger because of this.


SCHULTZ: Get your cell phones out. I want to know what you think
about this tonight. Tonight`s question: Will the raid on Zuccotti Park
strengthen the 99 percent movement?

Text "A" for yes, text "B" for no to 62263. Our blog is there for you
at We`ll bring you the results later on in the show.

Now, what`s happening down at Zuccotti Park?

Joining me now from the location in Lower Manhattan is NBC News
correspondent Mara Schiavocampo.

Mara, good to have you with us tonight.

What is -- what is happening down there tonight? And what is the mood
of the crowd after the raid?

MARA SCHIAVOCAMPO, NBC NEWS: Well, Ed, right now they`re holding a
general assembly meeting, which is something that they do every night. You
may be able to hear some of the shouts from them discussing issues. And
this is after a very emotional day, a lot of ups and downs today.

After that raid early this morning, people were very upset. They were
frankly angry, feeling that they had been mistreated and treated unfairly,
especially when they were denied access to the park after that temporary
court order had been issued, saying that they should be allowed back into
the park and back in with all of their belongings -- their sleeping bags,
their camping equipment and the like.

But despite that, as we know now, the city decided to keep them out
all day waiting for a final ruling on that. Now, when that final ruling
did come down, the crowd was joyous, which is a little counterintuitive
because they actually lost in court. They did not get what they wanted.

And I asked somebody about that, I said, why are you so happy about
this development now? And he said it was because they were being allowed
back into the park. What he said to me is that we are a movement that
thrives on resilience.

And so, the fact things didn`t go their way wasn`t what they focused
on. What they focused on the fact they are still here. And actually
before you came to me, there was a man walking back and forth saying we`re
still here, we`re still here. And that`s what they`re focusing on and
trying to determine what their next moves are going to be.

SCHULTZ: And, Mara, Mayor Bloomberg said that they will search people
entering the park. Are the protesters being searched tonight?

SCHIAVOCAMPO: Yes. And I want to show you something if I can. If
you can just look over my right shoulder, you can see a group of gentlemen
here wearing some yellow vests with reflective patches on them. This is
actually checkpoint to get into the park.

And so, they are searching people right now. They have flashlights.
It`s like when you go into a nightclub and they shine the flashlight into
your bag to make sure you`re not bringing anything in you`re not supposed
to be. So, they are doing that.

And the things that they`re looking for are the things protesters
aren`t supposed to be bringing into the park -- sleeping bags, personal
belongings, any type of camping equipment, the things that would allow them
to set up an encampment in the way they have been for the last two months.

SCHULTZ: NBC`s Mara Schiavocampo, thank you. Appreciate it.

One of our producers, Arianna Jones, was in Lower Manhattan last

And these are the scenes that she caught on her camera.

Arianna, good to have you with us.

Tell us about what you saw down there, what was the mood of the crowd,
how intense was it?

ARIANNA JONES, PRODUCER, "THE ED SHOW": When I got down there, I
couldn`t get within a two-block radius. They already formed kind of a
police barricade. They were all in riot gear. They were pushing all the
people that weren`t still defending the actual park, itself. They were
pushing them back, basically saying we weren`t even allowed on the
sidewalks, it was a pedestrian area, you risked being arrested.

People were pretty upset. There were people crying. But I was
actually impressed by how organized the chaos was.

I mean, the police presence was pretty heavy. There were hundreds and
hundreds of police, but they still managed to get messages out. They would
use the people`s mike and over the bull horns of the police giving orders
to the people, the people themselves were forming, you know, different
plans on where to go next.

SCHULTZ: And you did not identify yourself as a member of the media?

A. JONES: No, I did not. I mean, I had already heard from a few
people that had been there that they tried to use their credentials and
they were turned away as if they didn`t really matter.

SCHULTZ: I mean, the police made it clear, they were there, going to
do some business.

A. JONES: Yes. I mean, the riot gear, alone, made it pretty obvious.
They were not standing down.

SCHULTZ: And the mood of the people when this was happening, were
they saying this isn`t going to stop us? What was their reaction?

A. JONES: I spoke with a few people. I mean, a lot of people claimed
to be speaking for the G.A. or the general assembly. But a few of the
people did say, you know, it`s not about the park, that is not what`s
important, it`s the movement, itself.

So, they weren`t deterred by the fact the space was gone. I mean,
obviously, as Mara said, it`s a rallying cry. I mean, a lot of people took
it as it`s just another thing to strengthen it.

SCHULTZ: Were you nervous for your safety?

A. JONES: Yes. I mean, obviously the crowds were getting a little
bit -- it was very tense, obviously. But I wasn`t worried in the areas I
stayed a little bit further away just to avoid that. But there were
definitely some confrontations going on. Some arrests.

SCHULTZ: Arianna Jones, great work. Thank you.

Now, let`s turn to Van Jones, president and co-founder of, and Laura Flanders with us, host of Free Speech TV and
author of "At the Tea Party."

Great to have you both with us. Van Jones, do these raids strengthen
the movement nationwide? I mean, clearly, with the voice of the mayor on
that BBC interview, really spilling the beans that they`ve been in contact
with 18 different cities about how to handle this -- what`s happening here?

VAN JONES, REBUILDTHEDREAM.COM: Well, first of all, they`re going to
coordinate it, they should be coordinating to get jobs for young people,
coordinated to try to solve the problem that the occupations are pointing
out. So, you`re not making occupations be the main problem.

But you mark my words: they are going to regret having done this
because the harder you hit this movement, the harder it bounces back. This
movement is going to continue to develop. You`re going to see people now
occupying, you know, banks, in terms of, you know, nonviolently protesting
the banking system, you`re going to see people occupying abandoned schools,
opening up free schools for people --

SCHULTZ: So, this will strengthen movement you think?

V. JONES: It will strengthen the movement. When they try to wipe
this out, they`re going to spread it around.

November 17th, the day after tomorrow,, that will be
the two-month anniversary of the occupation of Wall Street. There are
going to be 300 protests across the country already planned. Now, those
are going to be massive.

SCHULTZ: Laura, what do you make of the media blackout? How
orchestrated it`s been?

LAURA FLANDERS, FREE SPEECH TV: Well, I don`t know about
orchestrated, but it wasn`t very effective. I mean, what the occupy
movement has shown is with their media, they can get the word out.

And before we move on to what good things this may have done for the
movement, and I think Van is absolutely right, there was a New York City
councilman taken away from the Occupy Wall Street site in Zuccotti Park
with his head bleeding early this morning.

The use of force from coast to coast is a target of these protests,
and it is part of the conversation that is being started here. That is
central to this movement, from Oakland to New York.

That said, Van is absolutely right. I mean, there were people at
Zuccotti Park today saying they`re wondering if maybe someone`s been
occupying the mayor`s office, because to do this action two days before a
national day of -- an international, actually day of action with student
protests in Spain and Germany and France as well as here, is just insane
and great for the movement.

SCHULTZ: Here`s Mayor Bloomberg on the press. Let`s listen.


BLOOMBERG: The police department routinely keeps members of the press
off to the side when they`re in the middle of a police action. It`s to
prevent situations from getting worse and to protect the members of the
press who have the same rights as everybody else.


SCHULTZ: Van, do you buy that? Is this the template for how they`re
going to handle these crowds?

V. JONES: Well, I mean, I think it`s despicable and disgusting to
have a mayor of a city that`s based on free speech and free expression, the
whole economy of New York in terms of the creativity, pretending that this
is something normal. It is completely abnormal to have zero press access.
Maybe you limit it a little bit. But with the helicopters, they`re afraid
somebody is going to fall out of the helicopter? It`s totally ridiculous.

SCHULTZ: This is how -- just an example of how the protesters have
been characterized on FOX News.


HANNITY: They have literally separate tents because of rapes. We had
a murder. There`s a plan out, I read earlier today, that they`re literally
now trying, there`s bomb threats.


SCHULTZ: Laura, you worry about the narrative sticking to the
protests like that?

FLANDERS: There is no question here that what is being attempted by
some in the media and some in the police force is to evict an idea, but it
cannot be done. You cannot evict an idea whose time has come, and the idea
that we need a new conversation in this country about pay-to-play politics
and about an economy where some are too big to jail, that conversation is
off and running and not getting bottled back up.

SCHULTZ: And, Van, what do you think about the narrative FOX is
trying to develop?

V. JONES: Well, you know, they have to smear this movement because
frankly I think 57 percent of Republicans actually agree with everything
these people are saying. And they`re terrified that their own base is
going to start to stand with the rest of the people -- 99 percent of the
Tea Party should be out there protesting as well because they are suffering

SCHULTZ: And, of course --

V. JONES: They have to lie and smear this movement.

SCHULTZ: Of course, some members of Congress and labor, right with
them, so this isn`t going to end. I agree with both of you on that.

Van Jones, Laura Flanders, always a pleasure. Remember to answer the
question at the bottom of the screen. Share your thoughts on Twitter
@EdShow. We want to know what you think.

Alleged child rapist Jerry Sandusky claimed his innocence in an
interview with Bob Costas. Tonight, we will play a large portion of the
interview and get reaction from an advocate of victims of child sexual

Was Newt Gingrich a lobbyist for Freddie Mac? The former House
speaker says, no. Former Freddie Mac officials say, oh, yes, he was.
Congressman Jim McDermott will weigh in on that.

You`re watching THE ED SHOW on MSNBC. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Coming up on THE ED SHOW: victims groups are responding to
Jerry Sandusky`s interview. We`ll play the tape everybody is talking about
and get reaction.

And Newt Gingrich makes it a four-way tie in Iowa. Dave Weigel is
here on the Republican field in disarray.

And Congressman Jim McDermott is going to tell us why his old
colleague, Speaker of the House Gingrich is pretty much a joke. Lots more
to come.

Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Thanks for joining us tonight here on THE ED SHOW.

We`re going to play large portions of an interview with alleged child
rapist Jerry Sandusky who was offered up to NBC News` Bob Costas by his
attorney, very strange. He had been charged with 40 felony counts relating
to sexual abuse of a minor.

Today, "The New York Times" reports up to 10 more suspected victims
have come forward. Police are working to confirm the new allegations. In
last night`s interview with Bob Costas of "Rock Center," Sandusky claimed
innocent, but offered a shocking explanation of what happened.


that I am innocent of those charges.

BOB COSTAS, NBC NEWS: Innocent? Completely innocent and falsely
accused in every aspect?

SANDUSKY: Well I could say that, you know, I have done some of those
things. I have horsed around with kids. I have showered after workouts.
I have hugged them and I have touched their leg, without intent of sexual

But -- so if you look at it that way -- there are things that wouldn`t
-- you know, would be accurate.

COSTAS: Are you denying that you had any inappropriate sexual contact
with any of these underage boys?

SANDUSKY: Yes, I -- yes I am.

COSTAS: Never touched their genitals? Never engaged in oral sex?


COSTAS: What about Mike McQueary, the grad assistant who in 2002
walked into the shower where he says in specific detail that you were
forcibly raping a boy who appeared to be 10 or 11 years old? That his
hands were up against the shower wall and he heard rhythmic slap, slap,
slapping sounds and he described that as a rape?

SANDUSKY: I would say that that`s false.

COSTAS: What would be his motive to lie?

SANDUSKY: You`d have to ask him that.

COSTAS: What did happen in the shower the night that Mike McQueary
happened upon you and the young boy?

SANDUSKY: OK, we were showing and horsing around. And he actually
turned all the showers on and was -- actually sliding -- across the -- the
floor. And we were -- as I recall possibly like snapping a towel,


SCHULTZ: I`m joined by Patrick McDonald tonight, a member of RAINN,
the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Networks Speakers Bureau.

Mr. McDonald, good to have you with us. I want your impression of
what you just heard in part of that interview.

actually, first, that he would go on and have that conversation. And
expect that any rational adult, young adult or certainly adult man or
woman, would believe any aspect to it. At least certainly, I can`t -- I
can`t think of any circumstance whatsoever where an adult male horsing --
you know, calling something horseplay in a shower with an underage child,
where that`s something that is acceptable and in any place whatsoever.

I can`t actually fathom why he would talk about it out in the open
like that, because none of it is really believable, at least from my

SCHULTZ: Is this a pattern that you see in people who are alleged

MCDONALD: Well, at least in my experience, they don`t necessarily
think they`ve done anything wrong. There`s certainly part of the problem,
is they don`t believe that their behavior has been inappropriate, that
their behavior has crossed any reasonable boundary.

SCHULTZ: Did you hear that in that interview just there?

MCDONALD: From my perspective, sure, I mean, it`s very matter of fact
that he`s in a shower, at least based on what he just said. He`s in a
shower with a young boy, engaged in horseplay or snapping towels or

And he does so unapologetically. He does so almost with a sense of
matter of fact, well, of course, this is what I did. Isn`t this what most
reasonable adults would do?

SCHULTZ: In this next portion of the interview, Sandusky addresses
the incident from 1998. Let`s listen.


COSTAS: In 1998, a mother confronts you about taking a shower with
her son and inappropriately touching him. Two detectives eavesdrop on her
conversations with you and you admit that maybe your private parts touched
her son. What happened there?

SANDUSKY: I can`t exactly recall what was said there. In terms of
what I did say was that if he felt that way, then I was wrong. I didn`t
say to my recollection that I wish I were dead. I was hopeful that we
could reconcile things.


SCHULTZ: What comes to mind when you hear that explanation, Mr.

MCDONALD: Again, the belief that you could reconcile anything with a
child, or with a parent, after you have seemingly acknowledged that he`s
touched your genitals or vice versa, whichever it happens to when, that
there can be any type of reconciliation or there can be any type of
circumstance --

SCHULTZ: He said he`s not --

MCDONALD: -- that would allow that to happen.

SCHULTZ: And he said in the interview he`s not a pedophile. What`s
your response?

MCDONALD: Well, pedophile and childhood sexual abuser, sometimes
they`re used the same but sometimes they`re different. Pedophile is
typically somebody who -- they like younger children, but they don`t
necessarily act on it, whereas a childhood sexual abuser act on it.

Sex abuse is not about how you feel about somebody and it`s not about
sex. Childhood sexual abuse or sexual abuse against anybody is about power
and control and violence.

SCHULTZ: And I want to play another part of the interview when
Sandusky is asked about football coach Joe Paterno. Here it is.


COSTAS: Did Joe Paterno at any time ever speak to you directly about
your behavior?


COSTAS: Never?


COSTAS: He never asked you about what you might have done, he never
asked you if you need help, if you needed counseling?


COSTAS: Never expressed disapproval of any kind?



SCHULTZ: That`s the part I find absolutely2 amazing, that he can work
with this guy for so many years, be told by his former quarterback and
graduate assistant what he saw in the shower and then Paterno not go face
to face with Sandusky and confront him with it. If that`s true, what does
it say about Paterno?

MCDONALD: Well, it -- it says a lot, which isn`t surprising, the fact
he didn`t take it to the next level anyway. Whether he confronted Sandusky
or not, he still didn`t take it to the next step which is completely and
utterly remove Sandusky from any other type of environment with children,
which means not telling your supervisor, it means calling 911, and sitting
on the guy until the police get there.

SCHULTZ: And do you think the university is responsible for a cover-

MCDONALD: In my opinion, sure, I do. That`s simply because at some
level, there`s a breakdown of communication and there`s a breakdown in
terms of action.

Now, certainly not everybody`s involved with that, but I don`t think
that you`ve seen the last of the people that had some type of idea that
either things were going on, or they really suspected that there might be
some type of issue.

SCHULTZ: Patrick McDonald, I appreciate your time on this subject
tonight. Thanks so much.

Mike McQueary now claims he did the right thing after he witnessed
Jerry Sandusky allegedly sodomizing a 10-year-old child. McQueary speaks
with CBS news about the case.

Four Republicans are battling it out in Iowa before the caucus.
Iowa`s own Michele Bachmann is not one of them. The race for the Hawkeye
State is coming up, with analysis.

Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Welcome back to THE ED SHOW. Penn State assistant football
coach Mike McQuery now claims he did go to police in the 2002 incident in
which Jerry Sandusky allegedly sodomized a 10-year-old boy. In an e-mail
to a former classmate obtained by the "Morning Call," McQuery says this:
"he did have discussions with police and with the official at the
university in charge of police."

McQuery writes, "he`s getting hammered for handling this the way, or
what I thought at the time was right."

Well -- but when questioned by a CBS news reporter, McQuery offered
only this.


process has to play out. I just don`t have anything else to say.


SCHULTZ: Let`s turn to Mike Papantonio, attorney and host of "Ring of
Fire" radio show. Mike, good to have you with us tonight.

There`s a new chapter like every day with this story, another sound
bite, another interview, another twist. This is now the second e-mail
surfacing from the assistant football coach saying that he did try to stop
the alleged 2002 rape. But does it really jive with the grand jury report?
What do you think?

MIKE PAPANTONIO, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Everybody`s lawyered up, Ed.
They`re going to see these stories change, just like we`re seeing right
here. Lawyers advising him, build the best case you can right now. Truth
is, there`s no way that a grand jury meets as long as they do, takes
testimony and that part of the testimony is simply left out.

We would see those e-mails being mentioned in the grand jury
testimony. So it`s a problem. You know what, he`s getting advised to do
that. He`s trying to build the best case he can. He`s trying to make
himself look as good as he can, because he was a pathetic failure when it
came to doing the right thing.

SCHULTZ: What did you make of Jerry Sandusky`s interview with Bob
Costas? I mean, wordsmithing the whole thing. What do you make of it?

SANDUSKY: From a legal standpoint, it was a train wreck, Ed. What it
told us is this: that he`s given up the idea of trying the case in front of
a jury, that he`s probably going to enter a plea. I say that because of
what happened in that interview.

Most of the time -- first of all, the interview should have never
taken place. We would have expected purely language that says, look, I
didn`t do it. I`m innocent, I did nothing wrong.

Instead what we saw him do is mix in language that a prosecutor is
going to use. He doesn`t even have to take the stand, Ed. He -- if he
goes to trial, this whole interview can be shown as a party admission,
where a jury gets to hear things like the fact that he took showers with
the boys, that he horsed around in the shower, that he lifted them up, that
he hugged him, that he touched their genitals.

All of that comes in. And you join it together, Ed, with eyewitness
testimony, victim testimony, expert shrink testimony, recorded statements
and what we call prior similar acts, a long history of prior similar acts.
This guy is toast. The real question --

SCHULTZ: And Mike, what do you make of his attorney offering him up
in the interview?

SANDUSKY: I think of ineffective assistance of counsel, Ed. Unless
this guy said to his attorney, look, I want to do this; I`m going to do it
even if you advise he against it, the discussion about ineffective
assistance of counsel is going to be out there. The testimony last night
really caused him harm.

SCHULTZ: Here`s Sandusky`s lawyer, Joe Amendola.


have a number of kids. Now, how many of those so-called eight kids, we`re
not sure. We anticipate we`re going to have at least several of those kids
come forward and say this never happened; this is me; this is the
allegation; it never occurred.


SCHULTZ: Is this attorney trying to intimidate alleged victims who
could possibly come forward to testify? How do you view that?

SANDUSKY: You know what, Ed, I really don`t think so. I really think
this attorney is just so far off base. He doesn`t have a plan. That`s the
only thing you can conclude.

Look, what he did with that interview, Ed, actually could interfere
with sentencing. If Sandusky says, look, I want to enter a plea of no
contest, this judge could say, really; let`s take a look at what you`ve
said in that interview. Let`s look at your prior acts.

Let`s look at all this. And what we can conclude is you have no lack
of remorse. You`re unwilling to admit what you`ve done. You`re willing to
place the blame on witnesses and victims. And so every time this lawyer
takes him further down that road, I am telling you, it`s -- it`s textbook
ineffective assistance of counsel, unless -- unless Sandusky has said to
this attorney, look, I want to do this; I`m going to do this; and he`s had
that fellow sign off on it.

It`s the craziest thing I`ve ever seen, because it affects the jury
trial and it affects the possibility of sentencing.

SCHULTZ: Mike Papantonio, great to have you with us again tonight.
Thanks so much.

Why did Freddie Mac pay Newt Gingrich 300,000 dollars? The answer is
next. Congressman Jim McDermott will weigh in.

The Cain train ground has -- well, it just came to a halt when he was
asked about Libya. But the pizza man isn`t letting anything get in the way
of his 9-9-9 plan. He`s going to the Zone. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Now to politics. Republican flavor of the month Newt
Gingrich really went out on a limb at the CNBC debate last week when he
said he never worked as a lobbyist for the government-backed mortgage
company, Freddie Mac.


JOHN HARWOOD, CNBC ANCHOR: Your firm was paid 300,000 dollars by
Freddie Mac in 2006. What did you do for that money?



GINGRICH: I offered them advice on precisely what they didn`t do. I
have never done any lobbying. Every contract that was written during the
period when I was out of the office specifically said I would do no
lobbying. And I offered advice.

My advice as a historian, when they walked in and said to me, we`re
now making loans to people who have no credit history and have no record of
paying back anything, but that`s what the government wants us to do -- I
said to them at the time, this is a bubble. This is insane.


SCHULTZ: Pretty shifty, isn`t it? So Newt says he was never paid to
be a historian. OK. He was -- he was -- he was paid to be a historian,
not a lobbyist. Never been a lobbyist.

Well, today, former Freddie Mac officials told "Bloomberg News"
Gingrich was hired to build bridges with congressional Republicans and
convince them not to dismantle the housing firm. What`s that sound like to
you? Sounds like lobbying to me.

Good thing the disgraced former speaker went on Fox last night and had
his Freddie Mac lobbying Hannetized.


SEAN HANITY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: I wanted you to explain the 300,000
dollars you said you gave to Freddie Mac. They did not take your advice.
You were not a lobbyist for them.

GINGRICH: I`ve never been a lobbyist for anybody. In fact, my
contracts exclude me from lobbying. I refuse to go back to Capitol Hill as
a lobbyist.

I offer strategic advice. I listen to people tell me what their
concerns are and I try to give them advice on how to solve it.


SCHULTZ: Joining me is congressman Jim McDermott of Washington.
Great to have you with us tonight.

For you veterans in Congress, this has got to be pretty good
entertainment at this point.

REP. JIM MCDERMOTT (R), WASHINGTON: We`ve seen the movie before, Ed.
The way Gingrich operates, the first thing he does is attack the press.
Attack the press, anybody who`s made any accusation. Then he dismisses and
says, I didn`t do anything; there`s no way I did that.

Then he starts to tell a tale as he rewrites history. And that`s
exactly what he did here. He said, I was not a lobbyist. You`re wrong.
You guys are attacking me. I was simply a historian there. I was sitting
around with them, telling them what was happening, and I gave them no
advice. And they paid me 300,000 dollars for it?

Well, a lot of people would like to be paid 300,000 dollars to sit
around and tell stories. That`s just nonsense, the whole thing.

SCHULTZ: I think the public would like to know -- I`d like to know
was Gingrich trying to sell Republicans on Freddie Mac back in 2006?

MCDERMOTT: Of course he was. He didn`t want them to dismantle it.
He didn`t want them to have any hearings on it. He didn`t want them to
examine what was going on there or the housing bubble or all the problems
that were -- ultimately that rolled out.

Everybody -- there were many people who knew there were problems in
the housing industry, but nobody wanted to have a public hearing where
somebody might come out and testify in public. Then the Republicans would
have had to do something about it. And Gingrich didn`t want that to

SCHULTZ: I tell you what, politically, he seems to be a cat with nine
lives. I mean, one of the most recent polling out there, the PPP poll,
Gingrich is at 28 percent. He`s ahead of Romney and Cain in the latest
polling. I mean, he seems to be able to dodge things.

I mean, his answers are pretty smooth and solid. And he speaks with a
veteran voice and has experience. He doesn`t have the gaffes that the
other candidates on the Republican side seem to have. What do you make of
all of this, the way it`s coming down?

MCDERMOTT: That`s only because the public has forgotten. This guy
was the most divisive member of the House of Representatives. He split the
Republicans and Democrats, got the Republicans in power, was speaker for
four years, and then his own people threw him out after the Ethics
Committee fined him 300,000 dollars.

Now, nobody talks about that, but that`s the same thing. When he was
accused in the Ethics Committee, he said, you guys are -- you`re attacking
me, you liberals. It`s awful. And I never did it. I never did any of
this stuff.

Then he paid 300,000 dollars to buy his way out of that situation and
lied to the committee. He told them he wouldn`t spin the result in the
public, in the press. And that`s immediately what he went out and did on a
telephone call with his entire leadership.

So this guy is not very well known because people have forgotten. But
in this campaign, if he gets to be the nominee, and I -- I think from
Obama`s point of view, he`d be a wonderful one because we could have a Hay
Day with this guy. This is a guy that was carrying on with a woman while
he was accusing Bill Clinton of all sorts of things.

This is -- this is a guy with a long tattered history that people have

SCHULTZ: Congressman Jim McDermott, always a pleasure. Thanks for
joining us tonight. Appreciate your time.

Next in Psycho Talk, Herman Cain keeps digging himself in a deeper and
deeper hole when it comes to foreign policy. He thinks 9-9-9 can get him
out of everything. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: And in Psycho Talk tonight, Herman Cain has spent the past
24 hours trying to spin his way out of a disastrous response to a question
about whether he agreed with President Obama on Libya.


supported the uprising, correct? Just wanted to make sure we`re talking
about the same thing.

I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason --
nope. That`s a different one. Got all this stuff twirling around in my

Specifically what are you asking me, did I agree or not disagree with


SCHULTZ: Over a minute of searching for an answer. His campaign said
that, well, he was just tired. Although we`re told Herman Cain`s campaign
set up the interview with the editorial board. But Herman Cain doesn`t
think he did anything wrong. He brushed off criticism about Libya -- the
train wreck is what it`s called -- calling it silly.


CAIN: They asked me a question about Libya, and I paused so I could
gather my thoughts. You know, it`s really complimentary when people start
documenting my pauses.


SCHULTZ: It`s the gathering, you know? Here`s something else we`re
documenting. Last night, Herman Cain told us about how he really feels
about foreign policy.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Cain, do you think the Libya comment
reinforced the idea that you don`t have a thorough understanding of foreign

CAIN: 9-9-9.


SCHULTZ: Only a matter of time before 9-9-9 became Herman Cain`s
answer to every question. But we`ve reached it. 9-9-9 isn`t even a valid
solution to our economic crisis. So responding to a question about foreign
policy with 9-9-9 is flat-out silly Psycho Talk.

Republicans have been campaigning against President Obama since he
took office. They just can`t seem to come up with an alternative.

And Iowa caucuses are right around the corner. MSNBC`s Dave Weigel
joins me for the Breakdown. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: Survey tonight, I asked will the raid on Zuccotti Park
strengthen the 99 percent movement? Ninety six percent of you said yes;
four percent of you say no.

Coming up, Herman Cain leading in Iowa caucus polls so slightly.
Really it`s a four-person race. We`ll break it down. MSNBC`s Dave Weigel
along with my commentary next. Stay with us.


SCHULTZ: And finally tonight, we`re less than two months away from
the Iowa caucuses. And the weakness of the Republican field, I tell you
what, folks, it is on full display. You can`t argue with that.

It`s a four way dead heat tie in Iowa, with Herman Cain barely
leading. He`s s only one point ahead of Ron Paul. Ron Paul doesn`t get
much respect in the debates, but he sure polls well out in rural America.
Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are also nipping at the pizza man`s heels.

All four are within the margin of error. At this point, 60 percent of
Republican Iowa caucus goers still say they could be persuaded to support
somebody else. Ah-ha, Rick Perry.

Republicans have been on a mission to defeat President Obama since the
first day of office. And they still can`t pick anyone to challenge him.
They`ve done all this obstruction. They`ve had this master plan to stop
President Obama. But they have never come up with a solid candidate with a
solid track record, that doesn`t flip all over the place and make goofy
comments that would actually come up and give President Obama a real run.

I know it`s going to be tough, but you know what, if they keep going
like this, it might be easier for the Obama administration than you think.
Joining me now is Dave Weigel, MSNBC contributor and political reporter for What do you make of the events that have taken place as of

DAVE WEIGEL, SLATE.COM: Well, we all made fun of Bill Kristol and
other Republican leaders when they were calling for Mitch Daniels to save
the party or calling for Paul Ryan to save the party. That was not crazy.
They might have seen something coming. This might have been a Nostradamus
movement for people like Kristol, because this is a mess.

Mitt Romney is, in the eyes of what`s left of Republican
establishment, certainly in the eyes of Republican pollsters, is an
electable candidate who, you know, has advantages over Obama that most --
the last few -- the other possible nominees don`t have.

And he can`t convince this about 75 percent of the Republican party to
take him seriously, especially in Iowa.

SCHULTZ: You know, Dave, you look at the Democrats. John Edwards
spent almost four years in Iowa. Chris Dodd moved there. Hillary Clinton
had awesome name recognition. But it was the ground game of Barack Obama
and a bunch of youngsters out there working every single county. Is Newt
Gingrich -- is he working every county? Is he going to be able to -- who`s
got the best ground game in Iowa, to your knowledge?

WEIGEL: He`s doing better. Romney theoretically has something that
can be activated. Remember, he got 25 percent last time. He has a network
there that he has worked very diligently, very under the radar, as we`ve
all been chasing other candidates.

Gingrich has staffed up. But the thing about Iowa is the person who
spent the most time there is Rick Santorum. He has visited 99 counties.
The people who have bought the most ads there are Michele Bachmann, Ron
Paul, Rick Perry, Rick Perry Super PAC. This is not showing up in the

I think what a lot of us are waiting to see if the people who have
really put the time in there, like Santorum, are going to do better, or if
Romney has a support base that we`re just not -- that`s not showing up in
all the flash of these candidates who rise for two months then collapse.

SCHULTZ: Yeah. Well, we haven`t mentioned Rick Perry. He`s down at
seven percent. He`s got a lot of money. And we should point out that the
Evangelical Christian vote in rural Iowa is going to come out in full
force. Is his seven percent -- he`s down in low numbers, but could that be
misleading, with the amount of money that he`s got? What do you think?

WEIGEL: Not terribly. Because remember, the thing that really
brought him down, more than any mistakes that we`ve all focused on, was his
immigration position. This has been a very sub-Rosa issue in Iowa. But in
2007, it captivated Iowa for a couple of months, the Tom Tancredo
insurgency, the anger about immigration and Republicans being too soft on
it, George Bush being too soft on it.

Perry is as unthinkable on that issue as anyone else, and there`s just
-- you`ve really -- if you talk to conservatives in Iowa, there is a big
opening for him. They don`t see much of a way for him to crawl out of it.
Now the advantage for everyone else is that if it`s Gingrich who`s rising
on this, you know, he -- there is a very long record. He`s kind of tried
to preempt this, a long record of Newt coalition building that you can
attack in the same way.

This is - we all come back to Romney with. He has been vetted on this
issue before. The attacks on him on immigration, on other things he`s been
heterodox on, when they`ve been aired in the debates, they`ve kind of
fallen off because they`re dull.

SCHULTZ: Well, you have Gingrich surging in the polls in the last ten
days to two weeks. You got three marriages there. The Christian Coalition
folks are not going to go along with that. You have Mitt Romney, the
Mormon issue there. Herman Cain is polling. But now, of course, this
latest gaffe with Libya ought to signal to the folks in Iowa that he`s just
not ready for prime time.

So is there any way that Perry could come back? I`ll say to you
tonight, Dave, I don`t think Perry`s out of the Iowa caucus. I really
don`t. I think it`s a goofy state when it comes to how they do this whole
thing. He`s got a lot of money. He`s going to speak their kind of

And there`s been so many mistakes made by others, I`m just not
convinced that Gingrich is going to be able to continue the surge in Iowa.
What go you think?

WEIGEL: No, I definitely think you`re right that Gingrich`s advantage
has been that we ignored him for six months. The media has ignored him.
Activists have ignored. And there`s been sort of an idealized picture of
Newt Gingrich that activists have come to like.

One advantage that he`s not going to stop having is that he`s a really
good debater. One thing that`s hobbled Perry and to a newer extent Cain is
that for all the jokes Republicans like to tell about how Barack Obama
can`t talk without a teleprompter, they get worried about putting somebody
up there who fumbles the ball across the stage like Perry has.

It doesn`t go along with the image of Obama that they have. Gingrich
is not going to fade in that respect as fast as these other guys. At the
same time, he`s not taken a punch the whole process. The first debate he
wasn`t even attacked.

SCHULTZ: Herman Cain could have used a teleprompter in his interview
yesterday. MSNBC contributor Dave Weigel, good to have you on with us

That`s THE ED SHOW. I`m Ed Schultz. Radio show is on Sirius XM 127,
Monday through Friday, noon to 3:00. Follow me at Twitter @EdShow and

Rachel Maddow, her show starts right now. I`m not going to miss it.
Good evening, Rachel.


Copyright 2011 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>