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

'Scarborough Country' for April 7

Read the complete transcript to Wednesday's show

Guests: Sammy Solovey, Kendall Coffey, Ereka Vetrini, Katrina Campins, Peter Schweizer, Rochelle Schweizer, Loretta Sanchez, Jed Babbin

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST:  Tonight, did John Kerry‘s shocking statements prove he‘s not ready to be president? 

You‘re about to enter SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, no passport required, no free passes allowed. 

John Kerry calls the terrorists behind the vicious murder of American Marines a—quote—“legitimate voice in Iraq.”  But don‘t take our word for it.  Take his.  We are going to be playing you the surprising tape that the rest of the media world is ignoring.  And we are also going to be asking a senior Army general in Iraq how they are going to put down this bloody insurrection. 

Then, were President Bush and his father at odds over the Iraq war?  We are going to be asking the authors of a shocking new book about the tension they uncovered within the Bush family. 

And on the hit show “The Apprentice,” there‘s only one woman left with a shot at the prize.  Did the females in the game hit the glass ceiling?  We are going to be asking former contestants Ereka, Katrina, and Sammy.

And should prosecutors be given Rush Limbaugh‘s medical records to try to build a case against him?  We are going to take you inside the courtroom today as Rush Limbaugh battles for his privacy rights. 

But, first, are the media elites covering up for John Kerry?  It‘s time for tonight‘s “Real Deal.” 

Today, in an interview on National Public Radio, John Kerry called the Iraqi terrorists, al-Sadr and his American-hating newspaper a—quote—

“legitimate voice in Iraq.”  Now, in case you missed the news of the past few days, this—quote—“legitimate voice” is an Iraqi terrorist and the militant Islamist responsible for slaughtering U.S. Marines and innocent Iraqis this week.  And the so-called newspaper that John Kerry wanted to keep open has been preaching hate towards Americans and claiming that terror acts launched by Muslim fanatics were actually carried out by American soldiers who are intent on killing Iraqi women and children. 

They are all lies that led to the death of young American servicemen.  But more disturbing was the fact John Kerry actually told NPR this morning that he opposed the arrest of al-Sadr unless it was followed with certain conditions.  Now, Senator Kerry should try telling parents and wives of dead American Marines that the murder of their sons and daughters and husbands by al-Sadr is not enough by itself to put a target on this terrorist‘s back. 

You know, with every passing day, John Kerry may be proving that he just doesn‘t get it.  America is at war and it needs a leader who can think clearly in times of crises.  John Kerry proved again today, as he has ever day since the first Americans were torched and lynched last week in Fallujah, that he is not the man to think clearly in a time of crisis. 

And that‘s tonight‘s “Real Deal.” 

Now, we have NBC News‘ Tom Aspell.  He joins us from Baghdad with the

very latest on the ground—Tom


TOM ASPELL, NBC CORRESPONDENT:  Well, three Marines have been killed in Fallujah in four days of fighting and resistance is still fierce.  And there are some reports of women carrying weapons in the streets. 

But Marines are saying now that they control 25 percent of the city.  In one incident today, Marines had to call in airstrikes after five of them were wounded by gunfire coming from a mosque.  A helicopter gunship fired a Hellfire missile and an F-16 dropped a 500-pound laser-guided bomb, destroying a wall of the mosque compound and killing at least 40 people.  Iraqi witnesses said they were civilian worshipers, but the Marines insist they were armed insurgents. 

The Marines are going block by block inside that city, attacking from three directions to get down into the center there.  According to U.S.  military officials, at least nine high-value targets have been captured, including some of those responsible for an attack on American civilian security consultants in the city last week.  Elsewhere in the Sunni Triangle, eight Iraqis were killed, shot dead during a demonstration in support of Fallujah outside the city of Kirkuk. 

And in the south and central south of Iraq, the Shia uprising against coalition forces continues, with fighting in Amara, Kut, Nasiriyah and Najaf itself, where the leader of that Shiite insurrection, Muqtada al-Sadr, is believed holed up inside a mosque surrounded by armed men.  He reached out today, asking his co-religioners in Iraq to join him in opposing coalition forces and he‘s also offered to work for his rival, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, saying that he will present him with Iraq on a golden platter—back to you. 


SCARBOROUGH:  All right, thanks a lot, Tom. 

Now, in the midst of the most intense warfare in over a year, John Kerry made this stunning comment earlier. 


SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  When they shut the newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq—let me change the term legitimate—when they shut a newspaper that belongs to a voice, because he has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is sort of a terrorist alignment. 


SCARBOROUGH:  With us now to talk about Senator Kerry‘s comments in the war is Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez from California and also Jed Babbin, the former undersecretary of defense for the Bush—first Bush administration. 

Let me begin with you, Jed. 

I was taken aback by the statements this morning on NPR, shocked that he even considered calling al-Sadr a legitimate voice in Iraq, also talking about how he wasn‘t sure that we should really arrest al-Sadr unless there were other conditions met first.  What was your response to these statements? 

JED BABBIN, FORMER DEPUTY UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE:  Well, I‘m still trying to scratch my head and figure out what he‘s really thinking, because apparently he is not thinking very clearly. 

It seems to me that statement is—it‘s just bizarre, Joe.  To sit back and say the guy who is an outright terrorist, who has called out a militia to attack Americans and kill our young men and women out there, is even possibly a legitimate voice in Iraq, to say that Hezbollah and Hamas are kind of, sort of a terrorist alignment?  What does he think they are?  Hezbollah has more American blood on its hands than any terrorist organization other than al Qaeda. 

I just don‘t think Mr. Kerry gets it.  This is a war and al-Sadr is and certainly a legitimate target.  He has declared war on the United States.  He is inciting violence.  He should surrender or he should be captured or killed, whatever it takes. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And, of course, as I said earlier, Senator Kerry was asked if he thought it was a good idea to arrest the terror leader.  And this is what he said. 


KERRY:  Not if it‘s an isolated act without the other kinds of steps necessary to change the dynamics on the ground in Iraq.  If all we do is make war against the Iraqi people and continue a—an American occupation fundamentally without a clarity as to who and how sovereignty is being turned over, we have a very serious problem. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Loretta Sanchez, I have a very serious problem with what John Kerry said.  First of all, we could talk about him saying that we are the ones carrying on a war with the Iraqi people right now, when they are the ones that—al-Sadr and terrorists launched an attack.  But, secondly, why is John Kerry putting conditions on the arrest or killing of this terrorist? 

REP. LORETTA SANCHEZ (D), CALIFORNIA:  Well, first of all, remember that it is a very serious situation if we would go in and get al Sadr, because I think that would create even more of an uprising. 

And everybody there, different insurgents, different interest groups, remember, are trying to vie for a legitimacy as we move forward towards trying to form this new government. 


SCARBOROUGH:  But, Congresswoman, this man is talking about killing U.S. Marines, U.S. soldiers.  You‘re saying we sit here and wait for him? 

SANCHEZ:  No, no. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Because we don‘t want to offend Iraqis? 

SANCHEZ:  No, I‘m saying is, we have to be very careful about how we get him and where we get him, because we could really create a bigger civil war going on and it could backfire on our own Marines who are there. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Congresswoman, let me ask you this.  If U.S. Marines tonight have a clear shot at al-Sadr, shoot we shoot him? 

SANCHEZ:  Well, it would be my—it‘s a tactical situation with the people in the field.  But, most likely, I would probably, if I were a general in the field tonight, probably say, yes, that‘s probably a good idea. 

But, remember, we don‘t have the backup right now.  We are very stretched.  We are having insurgents in different areas, not just in the Sunni Triangle.  And it depends on where our forces are and what kind of a backlash that creates.  It can create bigger problems for us just to go in and assassinate someone. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And, again, the thing is, my problem with what Senator Kerry said this morning was, he didn‘t talk about assassination.  He is even saying he is not even sure whether we should go in and arrest him. 

I want to play for you what President Bush said, describing how we needed to handle the situation in Iraq. 


GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  We are not going to be intimidated by thugs or assassins.  We are not going to cut and run from the people who long for freedom. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Jed Babbin, in this election year, do you think Americans are concerned about George Bush‘s approach to fighting this war on terror or do you think they are more concerned about what they heard from John Kerry?  Well, I‘ll tell what you they heard from John Kerry.  The media is covering this up.  We are the first TV show that‘s actually talked about this.  Give me your take. 

BABBIN:  I can‘t imagine any American being comfortable with John Kerry saying, well, maybe we ought to look at other steps or with what Ms.  Sanchez is saying.  This is not something that is going to stir up anything greater in there if we knock this guy over. 

He has got a very small following.  John Kerry really ought to straighten out his thinking.  And to go back to your original question to Ms. Sanchez, should we shoot this guy?  No, Joe, we should shoot him twice.  My daddy taught me, anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Loretta Sanchez, I‘ll give you the final word. 

SANCHEZ:  Well, al-Sadr does have a small following.  But if we take him out the wrong way, he can have a significantly more, larger following in a martyr sort of a situation.  And that‘s why we have to be very careful. 

Listen, I agree with the fact that we need troops in there and we need to quell this uprising.  We need to do it in a smart way.  But there‘s the political side of this equation also.  And that‘s where I think the administration is totally off base about what is going on. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Loretta Sanchez, we got to go.  Jed Babbin, got to go. 

Wish we had more time. 

I can tell you, though, the guy declared war on America.  Even the Shiites over there think he is a joke.  We need to take him out.  And you know why he‘s doing this?  He is doing this because he can‘t win in a democratic election after June the 30th.  And he knows it.  He‘s a thug.  We need to get rid of him. 

Now, I spoke to Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, deputy director of coalition operations, and also Dan Senor—he‘s spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority—about the Shiite uprisings in Iraq and how American forces were dealing with them. 


BRIG. GEN. MARK KIMMITT, U.S. DEPUTY CHIEF OF OPERATIONS:  We have got to remember the scale of this insurrection is—numbers in the small thousands, maybe 2000, 3,000 Mahdi Army members at the most. 

They are dangerous and they are well armed.  But the coalition forces are going after them.  And to somehow suggest that they represent even a minor portion of the Shia population is just incorrect. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Dan, let me bring you in here.

Obviously, as you know, there‘s been a lot of criticism stateside,

most of it political.  But there‘s been a lot of criticism about American -

·         the American authority over in Iraq shutting down a newspaper of al-Sadr‘s, many saying that that‘s what provoked this uprising, that America was wrong for doing that.  How can we talk about freedom of speech and exporting democracy to Iraq if we were shutting down newspapers that were opposed to America‘s presence over there? 

Please, let Americans know, what was that newspaper doing that required it to be shut down? 

DAN SENOR, COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY:  Joe, shutting down that newspaper was the right decision when we did it.  It would be the right decision today. 

Any institution in Iraq that is inciting violence against America‘s soldiers needs to be shut down.  It is not an issue of freedom of speech.  In every democracy, the authorities, whether it‘s the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia or here in Iraq, the authorities have a responsibility to strike a balance between, on the one hand...

SCARBOROUGH:  Dan, please, give us specifics.  What was that paper printing that was putting the lives of young American servicemen in danger? 

SENOR:  Well, what it does specifically, Joe, is it accuses Americans for gross acts of violence that we did not commit.

When there is a violent incident in a particular part of the country, rather than accurately reporting that it was a terror attack conducted by foreign terrorist elements, which, in one case, it said that America lobbed a missile into the heart of a religious area just to inflict casualties upon innocent mosque-goers, something that is just beyond the pale and is only certain to incite those looking for an excuse or those looking for answers against us. 

And this happens repeatedly with this newspaper.  Over the last several months, we have had repeated examples, Joe, of this paper attributing things that have happened to us and accusing us and attributing to us the most nefarious motives for these sort of acts. 

It is completely beyond the pale, completely unacceptable and it can result in Americans being killed. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And that is exactly why when Americans go in to try to rescue people, when American servicemen go in to try to help people after a terrorist act, a lot of times, the civilians are actually turning on the American troops who are there to help them, because these type of lies are being spread that it is Americans who are responsible. 

General, I want to ask you one final question.  That is, of course, another issue that‘s being raised today in the United States about the firing on a mosque.  Do you believe that if you were being shot at, if the enemy is seeking shelter in any religious shrine, that Americans must do and coalition forces must do whatever is required to smoke those terrorists, as I call them, out of that religious shrine, and, if that means firing on the shrine, it‘s got to be done? 

KIMMITT:  Well, it‘s not just a belief, but it‘s inscribed in the Geneva Conventions. 

The religious shrines, as you say, are protected by international law.  But when they are used to incite violence, when they are used to commit violence such as you describe, they lose their protected status and then they become a legitimate target.  So any attempt on the part of an adversary to use—to find sanctuary inside a mosque for the purpose of firing weapons realizes that he doesn‘t have the Geneva Convention on his side. 

For example, the mosque that was fired on today was not in fact the mosque, but just the outer wall.  When the Marines got in, they found out that there weapons there.  There was a functioning mortar there.  So, again, the law is on our side.  The Geneva Conventions are on our side.  When violence is committed inside or from a religious structure, it loses its protected status and then becomes a legitimate military target.  We don‘t have to apologize for that. 

SCARBOROUGH:  I agree with you, General.  Thanks so much for being with us, General.  Thank you, Dan.  We certainly appreciate all you‘re doing over there.  And god bless all of your efforts. 

KIMMITT:  Good to be with you, Joe. 

SENOR:  Thank you. 


SCARBOROUGH:  And coming up, what‘s the greatest political dynasty in America?  The Kennedys?  Not anymore.  Try the Bushes.  They have got presidents, governors, statesman.  And George W. is not the last in line.  That‘s straight ahead. 

And the only woman left on Donald Trump‘s “Apprentice.”  Did they hit the glass ceiling on the way to the boardroom or is that just the way the deal went down?  We‘re going to be talking to three “Apprentice” veterans.

Plus, how does “Doonesbury” get away with calling Condi Rice “brown sugar”?  Must be that old double standard rearing its ugly head again.


SCARBOROUGH:  A new book on the Bush dynasty is creating controversy over whether Bush Sr. supported his son‘s decision to go to war.   We‘re going to get the real deal from the authors themselves.

That‘s straight ahead.


SCARBOROUGH:  Now, my next guests are authors of the first full-scale biography of the Bush family dynasty.  It‘s an amazing book that traces the trajectory of America‘s most powerful family.  The book is called “The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty.”  And the authors, Peter and Rochelle Schweizer, join me now. 

Thank you all so much for being with me.  Good to see you again. 


SCARBOROUGH:  I want to begin by asking you the $64,000 question. 

There‘s some controversy that‘s blown up about the book. 

And according to your book—quote—“Although he never went public with them, the president‘s own father had many concerns about the war as the prospects for the war continued to grow throughout 2002.  He asked, but do they have an exit strategy?” 

But, of course, as you know the former president‘s office released a statement today saying that the notion that father didn‘t support the son in the Iraq war isn‘t true.  And they said this—quote—“He unequivocally supported the president and had absolutely no reservations of any kind.  The Schweizer book is filled with inaccuracies.”

I‘ll begin tonight by having you rebut the claims of President Bush 41.  Do you stand by your claims that the president‘s own father did have serious questions about this war? 

PETER SCHWEIZER, CO-AUTHOR, “THE BUSHES”:  Oh, yes, absolutely, Joe. 

And we started working on this book in 1999.  And we, through the course of four years, spent about 60 hours interviewing family members.  The vast majority of those were on tape.  And in our conversations with family members, they spoke on the record that the president did have concerns.  He was concerned in the same way that his former national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, was about the reproductions of the conflict.  And he did indeed ask his sister, do they have an exit strategy? 

This is not to suggest that the father is not supportive of the son, but it is to say that there were some very serious differences and I think concerns that the father had with going to war against Iraq. 

SCARBOROUGH:  I remember watching Brent Scowcroft go on “Meet the Press” with Tim Russert.  I remember him talking about reservations and all the other Bush family members talking about—or all the other Bush 41 people talking about reservations.  And I thought that it was some sort of good cop/bad cop game.  But you‘re telling me actually that they—there seriously was a split between Bush 41 and Bush 43.

P. SCHWEIZER:  Yes, there was. 

And what‘s interesting about this, Joe—this is something we talk about in the book extensively—the father and the son really are two very different people.  They are different in terms of their temperaments.  The father is strictly forgive and forget.  The son is, as family members say, forgive and remember. 

Also, in terms of their world view, the father was much more of a consensus politician.  The son is more of a rebel.  In a sense, he is more of a model with regards to Ronald Reagan than he is to his own father.  So I think the differences reflect the differences between these two men that have really spent a lifetime trying to understand each other. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Right.  And, of course, I remember right after we decided to go to war and Germany crossed us hearing about the president saying to Gerhard Schroeder, we will not forgive and we will not forget, words that you would not have heard out of Bush 41‘s mouth. 

I want to go to something else that you all uncovered.  And it was a quote from former President Bush about the surprising rise of his son George W.  He said: “You remember when your kid came home with two A‘s and you thought she was going to fail?  That‘s exactly what it‘s like.”

Rochelle, is it fair to say George W. may have been the last member of that family that the Bushes believed would be president of the United States? 

ROCHELLE SCHWEIZER, CO-AUTHOR, “THE BUSHES”:  Well, I don‘t know, Joe, if I would say he was the last member. 

But I certainly do think that early on, Jeb Bush was certainly the son that they thought would rise quickly and who would assume higher levels of office. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And, Jeb, I certainly worked closely with Jeb when I was in Congress.  He‘s, of course, governor of Florida.  And Jeb is a remarkable intellect, very different personality from George W.

Is the Bush family—and I‘m saying, again, I have got to explain that.  As you all know, George W. is great with people.  He‘s got great gut instinct.  But Jeb is a bit of a policy wonk.  Do you think it‘s possible we may see Jeb Bush running for president in 2008 or even beyond? 

R. SCHWEIZER:  I absolutely do think so, Joe.  Conversations we had again with family members were that he had been speaking with his mother about his financial situation.  With the Bushes, it is very important that they have their finances in order and then you run for public office.  And that was a conversation that he did have with his mother. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes, I also want to talk about another very interesting quote.  “The New York Times” picked it up when they were viewing your book. 

A family member said this—quote—“George sees this”—talking about Iraq—as a religious war.  He doesn‘t have a P.C. view of this war.  His view of this is that they are trying to kill the Christians.”

That‘s got to be very disturbing to many people that have been claiming this war is a religious crusade against Muslims.

P. SCHWEIZER:  Well, I don‘t think by that quote that what he is saying is that George W. Bush sees this as a crusade.  What they are really saying—and we also interviewed Franklin Graham, a family friend who has talked with George W. Bush on a lot of issues. 

The point is, is that George W. Bush thinks it‘s impossible to divorce the war from terrorism from the greater spiritual issues.  And that is something that‘s very important George W. Bush.  I actually think—and we talk about this in this book—that that‘s part of his strength, that if you look at the strength and the fortitude that he‘s demonstrated during these very difficult times, that‘s attributable to the fact that he used the conflict this way and it gives him the kind of strength and courage he needs to go ahead. 


P. SCHWEIZER:  The example again I would use is Ronald Reagan.  He views the war on terrorism very much the way that Ronald Reagan viewed the war against communism. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Exactly.  And that, of course, world view is what I believe and I‘m sure you all believe is what brought down the Iron Curtain. 

So, thank you so much for being with us, Peter and Rochelle Schweizer. 

The book looks great. 

And you can actually read an excerpt from “The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty” on our Web site at  I am going to read that tonight after the show, but also I am going to be reading this book over the holidays.  It looks great. 

And still to come: three men and only one woman left standing on the NBC hit show “The Apprentice.”  It‘s led to charges of sex discrimination against the Donald.  We are going to be asking contestants Ereka, Katrina and Sammy what they think.  That‘s up next.

Plus, the battle over Rush Limbaugh‘s privacy rights go to court.  Is he going to be able to keep his medical records sealed?  We‘ll take you to the courtroom.

But, first, let‘s get the latest headlines from the MSNBC News Desk. 



SCARBOROUGH:  As you know, “The Apprentice” is TV‘s hottest show, except, of course, for SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY. 

But unlike this show, there may be a glass ceiling holding back professional women on “The Apprentice.”  But some say the show just reflects a troubling reality in working America.  “Apprentice” veterans Katrina Campins, Ereka  Vetrini, and Sammy Solovey are all here. 

Hey, thanks for being with us. 

Let me get this straight, women.  First of all, the women‘s team won the first four weeks.  Then the producers switched teams and now there‘s only one woman left. 

What happened, Katrina? 

KATRINA CAMPINS, “THE APPRENTICE”:  In my opinion, I think that the women feel very threatened by each other and they are all competing for one position.  Obviously, there‘s not many women in Mr. Trump‘s company.  And I think that the women have basically eliminated each other because they see more of a possibility for themselves if they are the last woman standing. 

But I also think, is there a glass ceiling?  Yes, there is.  Can women get through it?  Certainly.  I just think that women need to stop thinking of it as a man‘s world and start thinking of it as their world. 

SCARBOROUGH:  So you don‘t think there‘s a glass ceiling on “The Apprentice” or with Donald Trump?  You think it may be the women‘s own fault? 

CAMPINS:  Partially.  I do think there‘s a glass ceiling, and I think that there‘s many different reasons why Amy‘s the last woman standing. 

One particular reason is because the women, for example, if men are aggressive, they are seen as being tough businessmen.  If women are aggressive, as we have seen time and time again—when Ereka and I were aggressive, we were labeled as emotional and we were fired because of it.  A perfect example is, Ereka got criticized for not bringing me into the boardroom, but Troy and Kwame never brought each other in the boardroom until the last episode.

And Amy didn‘t bring her boyfriend into the boardroom and I got fired. 

So I think that there‘s definitely a bias towards the women on the show. 

SCARBOROUGH:  I‘m a conservative guy, but I saw with my mom growing up, who was a professional, and my aunt, who was a professional, women are held to a different standard.  If women are aggressive and as tough as men in the workplace, then they are penalized for it. 


CAMPINS:  And I think a perfect example, for example, is athletes and their coaches.  If a coach is not happy with what‘s going on during a game, he yells and scream and is seen as being tough.  Can you imagine what a woman would be labeled if she was doing the same on the sidelines? 

SCARBOROUGH:  Exactly.  And equal rights groups are saying that the women of “The Apprentice” learned a hard lesson—quote—“Like a window that birds cannot see until they crash into it, the glass ceiling is often invisible to women until they hit it.  And, as with this reality show, most women don‘t realized it‘s happening until they look back and they spot the trend.”

Ereka, is that a fair assessment? 

EREKA VETRINI, “THE APPRENTICE”:  Absolutely.  You see seven consecutive women on “The Apprentice” were fired.  What does that mean?  And I think it should be also noted that...

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, you tell me, what does it mean? 

VETRINI:  Either intentionally or unintentionally, it‘s exactly showing that there is a glass ceiling for women in business, for sure. 

I personally feel that there is one and that it‘s more specific in certain industries than others.  I out of school worked for one of the largest financial companies.  And I can tell you it was absolutely a boys club.  On the other hand, I worked in marketing for a cosmetics company and I was surrounded by all women.  At the same time, though, all of the president positions, CEO positions, were predominantly held by males. 

So I guess, yes, for the most part we are definitely realizing it through the show‘s eyes that there was some sort of glass ceiling. 

CAMPINS:  And you realize it now more than ever.  Now that we‘re looking back, I realize, God, there is a glass ceiling. 

VETRINI: Right.  And what upsets me the most is definitely the emotional part of it all. 

Katrina and I are watching a football game and we see a football coach explode on the sidelines.  Or I have worked for presidents and CEOs who have thrown things and they are aggressive and ruthless, while we are emotional and fragile or lunatics of some sort.  And, unfortunately, the show bought into every one of those stereotypes of women and business, of women in business. 


Sam, let me bring you in here.  I want to play you a scene from the boardroom before Trump fired Katrina. 


DONALD TRUMP, DEVELOPER/BUSINESSMAN:  In the meantime, there‘s going to be one woman and four men left in the suite.  So they staged a pretty good comeback.  And you didn‘t help things by choosing a woman.  You could have chosen your boyfriend. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  He is not my boyfriend whatsoever. 

TRUMP:  But you think Nick would be better than Katrina? 


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  If you want to win, why would you keep your competition? 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Because I focused on aligning myself with the strongest team members until the end.  And from that point, I think it‘s my responsibility to work on my own. 

TRUMP:  And then you destroy them? 



SCARBOROUGH:  Sam, let me ask you, do you think the show proves that women are at a competitive disadvantage? 

SAM SOLOVEY, “THE APPRENTICE”:  I actually disagree with Ereka and Katrina. 

VETRINI:  Of course you do, Sam.



SOLOVEY:  I don‘t think there‘s a glass ceiling.  I actually think that Ereka and Katrina have an extreme advantage over me in corporate America. 

CAMPINS:  Sam, you use your charm.  You use your charm, Sam. 


VETRINI:  But, Sam, you didn‘t even work in corporate America.  Aren‘t you a private business owner?  So where is your experience coming from?


SCARBOROUGH:  Sam, they are teaming up on you.

Again, I want you to explain to me, why do you think there‘s not a glass ceiling?

SOLOVEY:  Because what happens is women—an attractive woman has an advantage over me.  And as they succeed in the workplace and as they escalate up the ladder, they do very well.  I think what happens is, they get to the very high levels, a boardroom setting, as you have seen on the show, they tend to self-destruct.


SOLOVEY:  The strong, powerful man and their ability to handle themselves better in a boardroom setting tends to overpower women.  I think it is the same reason why single-sex education works very well for women, because they can all succeed together.  I think women should go out and start their own companies and hire women. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Hold on a second.  We are not going to obviously solve this issue tonight. 

But, Ereka, I want to move on because I understand you are going to be on Oprah tomorrow with your friend Omarosa. 

VETRINI:  Yes, we will.

SCARBOROUGH:  And I have got to ask you the question.  She is claiming you used the N word to her face and attacked her.  Is that the truth? 

VETRINI:  Absolutely not true. 

I never, ever use that word, ever.  It is not in my vocabulary.  And I for sure never called her that word.  She is unfortunately trying to—she is the villain right now and she wants to be the victim.  And this is her way of transitioning.  Unfortunately, it won‘t work.  I think the viewers should probably know that she refused to be here with me today.  I‘m not sure why she is afraid. 

I feel like, unless you have something to hide or you‘re lying, you should not be afraid to confront me. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And I also understand that, on “Oprah,” you were not allowed to sit on the stage with her and talk to her one on one.  And...

VETRINI:  Absolutely. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And did you get blindsided on “Oprah”?


I was so upset and I left that program so, so, so upset.  Originally, she refused to be in the same segment.  And I said, absolutely not.  If she was is in the segment after me, she was going to accuse me of something and I won‘t be able to defend myself.  Without telling me, they decide to bring her on and have her sit next to Oprah while we sat in the audience.  And it was a complete disadvantage. 

It was a complete awful way to have to defend myself.  And I really was really, really upset at the way the show was produced. 

SCARBOROUGH:  I want to play you all a clip from “Saturday Night Live.”  They had some fun at the expense of Omarosa, who supposedly developed migraines after being hit by something falling from the ceiling.  I think it was plaster.  Take a look.


UNIDENTIFIED ACTRESS:  I‘m not going to ever let anything beat me down.  Oh!  My head!  A piece of plaster has fallen on my head!

I think it is appalling that we should be expected to work inside this television studio and not be provided with hardhats. 



SCARBOROUGH:  Gosh, she is so funny. 

Katrina, respond to that one. 

CAMPINS:  I think the only thing that was inaccurate there is that that suit was a lot nicer than the ones that we have seen her wear. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Let me ask, Ereka, is that a fair statement to make? 

VETRINI:  I‘m sorry, which one, that‘s she‘s...

SCARBOROUGH:  No, I‘m just curious.  What did you all think? 


SCARBOROUGH:  Why has she turned into the villain of this show? 

CAMPINS:  Because she is. 

VETRINI:  Because she is. 


SOLOVEY:  Let me add something, though.  Can I just


SOLOVEY:  All of the women


VETRINI:  One thing, though. 


VETRINI:  We were accused of catfighting.  We were accused of catfighting.  And I have to specify or point out that every argument was between Omarosa and Amy, Omarosa and Katrina, Omarosa and myself.  Omarosa, she was the instigator. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Sam, go ahead.

SOLOVEY:  But everybody‘s still catfighting. 

VETRINI:  No, we had an instigator.


CAMPINS:  No, Sam.  And, Sam, let me defend myself for one point, because I know what you are referring to. 


SOLOVEY:  I haven‘t said anything yet. 


But, listen.  Basically, I have been very pleasant with everyone.  And I actually get along with most of the people on the show, as you well know, because, Sam, we were together all of us. 


SOLOVEY:  But I‘m not attacking you.  I‘m not attacking you. 


CAMPINS:  No, no, I know, but I feel like I have to defend myself, because, in the media, for example, with this whole Amy situation, the only reason that I‘m saying these things about her is because she accused me of using sex to sell.  So I felt the need to defend myself. 

If I stayed back, I basically would be admitting what she‘s accusing me of.  And I think that she‘s obviously afraid of confronting me now. 

SCARBOROUGH:  OK, Katrina, Ereka and Sam, thanks so much for being with us.  We are going to have to continue this next week.  It is too good to let go.  We appreciate you being with us. 

Now, from the boardroom to the courtroom.  We are going to take you inside Rush Limbaugh‘s battle to keep his medical records sealed.  It was a big day in court. 

And then, the cartoon “Doonesbury” calls Condoleezza Rice “brown sugar.”  How are they getting away with that?  Just ask the liberal media.  I have got issues. 

That‘s coming up.

ANNOUNCER:  You‘re watching SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.  Now here‘s some Hotwire travel trivia.

If you plan to visit the town known as the carpet capital of the world, where would you need to go? 

Stay tuned for the answer.


ANNOUNCER:  You‘re watching SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.  And in today‘s Hotwire travel trivia, we asked you, if you plan to visit the town known as the carpet capital of the world, where would you need to go?  Give up?  The answer is Dalton, Georgia.

Now here‘s Joe.

SCARBOROUGH:  I got that one right, too.  That‘s, by the way, Deborah Norville‘s hometown and also the town of my grandma.  And that‘s how I knew it.  I know you‘re very interested in knowing that. 

Rush Limbaugh‘s attorney and Palm Beach prosecutors went head to head in court today.  And the question was, should prosecutors be allowed to see Rush‘s private medical records that were taken from his doctor‘s offices? 

NBC‘s Mark Potter was in the courtroom and he‘s with us now to tell us the latest—Mark.

MARK POTTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT:  Well, good evening, Joe. 

In today‘s hearing, the core argument was privacy rights on the one hand vs. a prosecutor‘s right to conduct a full investigation on the other.  At issue was whether prosecutors can use Rush Limbaugh‘s medical records to determine whether he may have broken Florida law by obtaining overlapping prescriptions in a practice known as doctor shopping. 

Now, in the hearing today before a three-judge panel in the appeals court behind me, Limbaugh‘s attorney, Roy Black, said that, in seeking those records by using a search warrant, investigators not only ran afoul of state law.  They also violated Limbaugh‘s privacy rights. 


ROY BLACK, ATTORNEY FOR RUSH LIMBAUGH:  The invasion is an invasion of the right of privacy.  The Florida legislature decided the intrinsic harm here was just going in and having the arm of law enforcement take your records from the hands of your doctors and put it in their office, as they did in this case.  That violates the right of privacy that the citizens of this state voted for. 


POTTER:  Now, attorney Black argued that, instead of using search warrants, by law, the prosecutor should have sought a subpoena, which would have had required them to give Limbaugh advanced notice of their intent, so that he could then go to court to argue over which records the prosecutors would be allowed to see. 

But prosecutor Jim Martz in his presentation said that advance notice could lead to some of those records potentially being destroyed.  He also pointed out that, in getting the search warrants, the investigators had to seek permission from two different judges. 


JAMES MARTZ, FLORIDA PROSECUTOR:  You need to remember that when they went to do this, they had information that supported probable cause that the target, who was the patient, was involved in the crime.  It‘s not like an innocent person.  It‘s not like you and me out there and they are just pulling records to try and go after you politically. 


POTTER:  Now, the appeals court has indicated that its important ruling on these records could come in the next few weeks.  And many people here believe that this is a critical ruling, a critical decision that could affect the outcome, the future actually of the Limbaugh investigation—

Joe, back to you. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, thanks so much for the update, Mark.  We greatly appreciate it. 

Now let‘s bring in our panel.  We have got Pam Bondi.  She‘s, of course, a Florida prosecutor from Tampa.  And also Kendall Coffey, a former U.S. attorney. 

Pam, what‘s the impact on the prosecution if they lose this case? 

PAM BONDI, FLORIDA PROSECUTOR:  Well, I think the prosecution‘s in big trouble if they lose the case. 

If the medical records are suppressed, that means that—well, those are the documents that they would use to go forward, so I seriously doubt they would file charges if the records are suppressed.

SCARBOROUGH:  So, if they lose this appeal in the 4th Circuit, then, basically, it‘s game over, isn‘t it? 

BONDI:  It‘s game over.

But even if they lose, it seems like the DCA would call this a question of great public importance.  I think everybody can agree that it is.  And then it can be appealed to the Supreme Court.  I think the appeals are going to go on regardless of who wins for quite a while. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Kendall Coffey, let me before you in here. 

Today, Rush Limbaugh weighed in on the appeal.  And I want to play you what he had to say. 


RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  They claim they had probable cause, but they didn‘t know what to charge me with.  After all that you have heard about all of these so-called charges and leaks and so forth, they admitted in their own brief they had no clue what to charge unless they can see all of my medical records.  We are trying to stand up and oppose this and stop this kind of wanton abuse of privacy from taking place. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Kendall, there seems to be a bit of—the prosecution‘s trying to have it both ways.  They‘re claiming they have enough probable cause to arrest him, but then they come back and tell the court today, well, we can‘t really do anything unless we get these private medical records.  Are they trying to have it both ways? 

KENDALL COFFEY, ATTORNEY:  Well, I think the court was a little troubled by it. 

And I was intrigued, because at least two of the three judges, and maybe all three, had some concern about the scope of the records that were being investigated.  A couple of the judges really seemed to hone in on the fact that, look, the Florida legislature went to all this trouble to craft a very specific procedure.  You issue a subpoena.  Then you give the patient notice.  They come in.  You tailor it narrowly if there‘s a legitimate purpose. 

And instead, the state attorney‘s office bypasses it totally and says, I can ignore the statute with a search warrant.  And I think one of the interesting things that we are going to see here is the question of why did the state attorney‘s office need to proceed in, frankly, the most visible and some ways the most intrusive way, rather than simply use the procedure that the state of Florida handed them on a silver platter in order to look at medical records if they needed to?

SCARBOROUGH:  And with the right to privacy actually written in the Florida Constitution, it is going to be very difficult for this judge to rule with the prosecution, isn‘t it? 

COFFEY:  Well, it‘s really a jump ball on this case.  I thought one of the judges—there are three judges on the appellate panel, Joe—was clearly on the side of the prosecution.  I thought the other judges were seriously thinking about doing something, whether sending it back to the trial judge to get a second lock as to whether the subpoena process needed now to be used, something to reduce the scope of the request by the government. 

I think a couple of judges wanted to do something because they thought the prosecution went too far.

SCARBOROUGH:  Pam Bondi, was that your take after following what happened today in the courtroom? 

BONDI:  No. 

I mean, Joe, the spirit of the law, the spirit of that law is to protect every citizen from having their records coming in there and being seized, you, me, Kendall, all of us, all of us.  But it‘s not to impede a pending criminal investigation.  And then we have got this law called doctor shopping that comes along.  And the way to prove it is by medical records. 

And what they did in going—and what is the harm here?  You go in and—Roy Black had a clever argument, the long arm of the law.  They went in and they seized these records.  However, what‘s the harm?  The right to privacy is violated when you view the records.  These records were sealed.  And that‘s what they did.  And I agree the waters are murky out there right now with this law. 

SCARBOROUGH:  They won‘t be for long, though.  You‘re exactly right, Pam Bondi, because we are going to see a ruling that I think is going to change the law not only for Florida, but for America. 

Thanks for being with us.  And we‘ll be right back.


SCARBOROUGH:  Tomorrow night in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY:  Condoleezza Rice testifies in front of the 9/11 Commission and we‘ll break it down with former CIA Director James Woolsey and former Nixon counsel John Dean.  That‘s tomorrow night.

But we‘ve got more SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY straight ahead.


SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, I‘m Joe and I‘ve got issues. 

Now, it seems like every day, we can find another example of hypocrisy in the media.  Today, it‘s over the cartoon strip “Doonesbury.”  Cartoonist Gary Trudeau shows us an imaginary conversation between President Bush and Condoleezza Rice and has the president calling her “brown sugar.” 

Now, can you imagine the outcry from the mainstream press if a conservative cartoonist had done the exact same thing?  The cartoon would be under such intense attacks, it would be dropped from just about every newspaper in the country.  But, once again, I‘m sure the hypocritical elite media are going to give one of their own a free pass. 

And I have got issues with the Saudis.  A “Newsweek” exclusive report explains how Fleet National Bank has found some suspicious wire transfers from the Saudi Embassy in Washington to a possible al Qaeda sleeper cell.  U.S. law enforcement sources told “Newsweek” there‘s no evidence the embassy knowingly financed terrorist activity.  But during an investigation, a link was reportedly found between the Saudi Embassy and the men who allegedly helped the 9/11 masterminds and who may have been planning follow-up attacks in the United States. 

And, finally, I have got issues with the French.  OK, so that‘s not breaking news, but now I have even got more issues.  Here‘s why.  A laptop computer maker just found out what the French translation of the bag‘s washing instructions really says.  It starts out just like the English part for the first six lines.  But then it says—quote—“We are sorry that our president is an idiot.  We didn‘t vote for him.”

The president of the company said he had no idea that was what the tag said and promised to have them retranslated. 

Hey, and you can tune into MSNBC tomorrow for exclusive live coverage of Condoleezza Rice‘s testimony for the 9/11 Commission.  That‘s starts at 9:00 a.m. with Lester Holt and Chris Matthews.  

And we will see you tomorrow night live from Washington, D.C., to put it all in perspective with former CIA Director James Woolsey. 

Good night.


Copy: Content and programming copyright 2004 MSNBC.  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.  Transcription Copyright 2004 FDCH e-Media, Inc. (f/k/a/ Federal Document Clearing House Inc., eMediaMillWorks, Inc.), ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user‘s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon MSNBC and FDCH e-Media, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.