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

'Scarborough Country' for October 6

Read the transcript to the Thursday show

Guest: Rebecca Traister, James Hirsen, Walt Zalisko, Tom Tancredo, Chip


JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST:  Tonight's top headlines:  FEMA foul-ups, Supreme Court civil wars, and possible White House indictments spell nothing but trouble for President Bush.  FEMA flubs it up again.  Inaction and no-bid contracts still muddy the Mississippi region. 

Then, Karl Rove headed to a grand jury again, while the president's pick for the Supreme Court causes conservative true believers to cry foul.

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

ANNOUNCER:  From the press room, to the courtroom, to the halls of Congress, Joe Scarborough has seen it all.  Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.

SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, thanks so much.  We are going to be getting to those stories in just a minute, plus, Kate Moss and the fashion industry facing charges of sleaze and drug abuse, and the latest on Donald Sutherland's over-the-top tearjerker rant against George W. Bush while overseas.

But, first up tonight, more than five weeks and one FEMA director after Katrina, the agency in charge of recovery is back in the hot seat again today.  Friends, there's been waste, fraud, overpriced no-bid contracts, thousands living in shelters and looking for lost children. 

There's been political infighting.  There's been widespread incompetence.  It continues across the Gulf region.  New Orleans and the Gulf Coast is still a mess, and FEMA is clearly in over its head. 

Now, for the very latest tonight, let's go live to New Orleans and NBC's Donna Gregory. 

Donna, what is the latest on the FEMA foul-ups down there? 


There's a range of emotions from concern to, frankly, disgust with how FEMA has been handling this whole disaster.  Start at the beginning.  They have been criticized for what many are calling a very slow response in the very early days after Hurricane Katrina rolled through and then, of course, the very public removal of the former FEMA director.  And it just goes on from there.  There's a lot of concern about the slow establishment of the trailer villages that they have seen and a much more rapid response in many other hurricane situations. 

The disaster recovery centers, we visited one just yesterday, which are sometimes confusing for people who are going there expecting some aid that they can actually use.  And what they end up doing is filling out paperwork to find out when down the road they can get some money. 

And then, today, FEMA sponsoring a business conference here with city officials in New Orleans, the back-to-business conference.  A lot of the business owners that we talked to, smaller businesses, I should say, came off the escalator saying, you know, where is the beef?  I have been down here.  I was trying to find some workers for my small landscaping company, trying to find some people to do some contract work.  They told us how to fill out permits and how to understand the building codes, very confusing here for the people here, and a lot of concern, Joe, about New Orleans laborers being hired to do the work to rebuild this city. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Donna, I would guess that the anger on the ground has to be palpable.  I mean, you—I have been in these hurricane zones before and the recovery.  Even when FEMA and the local and state governments doing their very best, you still have anger from local residents.

But I would guess there has to be frustration that's got to be widespread, not only in New Orleans, but across the entire Gulf region.  Tell us about that. 

GREGORY:  And add bitterness to that as well. 

There's a racial factor here as well.  There's a lot of minority-owned businesses who are saying, hey, we want a piece of this pie.  We never have a chance to get into the game.  And then keep in mind, too, Joe, the living conditions here.  People just today got running water in Orleans Parish, so it's been very frustrating on all kinds of levels. 

SCARBOROUGH:  It certainly has to be. 

Donna, thank you so much for being with us.  We greatly appreciate it. 

And, friends, you know, just because the news seems to move on, and the news is always moving—there's a 24-hour cycle that devours anything that's in front of it—and just because it may move away from New Orleans for a little bit or Mississippi for a little bit, I can tell you firsthand, because we continue to stay in touch with people who need help across the Gulf Coast, that people are still hurting. 

I can also tell you that the frustration continues with FEMA, not just from politicians and pundits and people that have TV shows, but, most importantly, Americans who are suffering on the ground. 

Now, we told you last night about the millions of taxpayer dollars that are being wasted by FEMA.  Well, today, that agency made a major announcement regarding the way it's been handling some of that money.  I say some of that money.  Let's get specific, friends.  It's your money.  It's your tax dollars.  It's what you work for, what you write a check to Washington, D.C., for.  And it's been misspent terribly. 

NBC's Martin Savidge has that story tonight. 

Martin, what do you have? 



Here in the hurricane region, it was all about business today, the business of rebuilding and then the business of just plain trying to get back on the job. 

(voice-over):  Facing a growing storm of criticism, acting FEMA Chief David Paulison told a Senate committee today more than $1.5 billion worth of no-bid contracts for hurricane cleanup and reconstruction work will be rebid. 

DAVID PAULISON, ACTING FEMA DIRECTOR:  And I can assure you that we are going to look at all of those contracts very carefully. 

SAVIDGE:  The announcement follows several media reports, including last night's NBC News investigation, that found the government has overpaid millions of dollars for products and projects and diverted work from businesses in storm-ravaged areas that need all the help they can get. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  No water, no power, no computer services, no telephone services. 

SAVIDGE:  Scott Schneider (ph) is trying to get his New Orleans-based cleaning supply company back on its feet, and he's not alone. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  You didn't bring any forms with you? 

SAVIDGE:  In New Orleans, nearly 1,500 small business leaders met with the mayor and governor today to hear how they thought this was going to work.  Mayor Nagin says the city's glass isn't just half-full.  It's overflowing. 

RAY NAGIN (D), MAYOR OF NEW ORLEANS:  An incredible opportunity, a once-in-a-300-400-year opportunity, and I would implore you to have patience, to be diligent, to be organized. 

SAVIDGE (on camera):  And there's more good news today.  Health officials in the city of New Orleans say it is now safe to drink the water again in most of the city. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  That is the break right there. 

SAVIDGE (voice-over):  And finally, the Army Corps of Engineers had this to say about the levees in New Orleans. 

LT. GENERAL CARL STROCK, COMMANDER, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS:  It is our goal that, by the beginning of the next hurricane season, we will have the Category 3 protection that existed prior to Katrina back in place. 

SAVIDGE:  Small reassurance in a region still reeling from a Category 4 storm. 

(on camera):  Incidentally, the state of Louisiana said today that the

number of people filing for unemployment insurance was up 16-fold from what

it was prior to Katrina, another indication, Joe, that business is not good

·         Back to you. 


SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Thanks so much, Martin Savidge. 

You know, Martin is really—he's one of the smartest reporters out there.  I was—I got to tell you, I was a big fan of what he did during the Iraq war for another network, but a huge fan of what he has been doing here working with NBC.

And if you don't think he is not one of the smartest guys on TV, then you obviously didn't notice that, while he poured the water in New Orleans, he didn't drink it. 

Now, out of all of those no-bid contracts handed out after Katrina, less than 10 percent went to companies from Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana. 

With me now to talk about that is Mississippi Congressman Chip Pickering. 

Chip, thank you so much for being with us tonight.

SCARBOROUGH:  You know, Chip, I got to tell everybody the backstory here about you and me and what's happened since Katrina has hit, because it underlines just how poorly the government has been responding to this crisis. 

I have been working and my wife has been working through an organization that you and your wife have been putting together to ship goods.  I think we have spent—sent about $250,000 worth of goods your way, and you all have been getting it down to southern Mississippi.  And yet, Chip, we thought, a week ago, two weeks ago, we could stop sending it over there because the government would step in, FEMA would step in, and effectively handle it.  But it's still not happening, is it, Congressman? 

REP. CHIP PICKERING ®, MISSISSIPPI:  Not like—Joe, I want to thank you.  The people of Mississippi love you and appreciate your wife.  All the things that you all have done to send us help, supplies, you all have been great. 

The really good story in this disaster is what neighbors have done, churches have done, private relief, private sector people have done to get help where it's needed quickly and compassionately.  And the people of Mississippi also love that you have kept the light on Mississippi and helped shine what we need to recover, and—excuse me—I hope that the prophet in the wilderness, the critic helps us make sure that we the businesses and the jobs that we need through the government contracts, because, right now, that simply is not the case. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, Chip, why is that FEMA has fouled up so much?  And you got to have people—and I got to tell you, it's not my wife and me, as much as all the people that watch this show that have actually—we expected to raise $30,000 or $40,000, take water and diapers over to Mississippi.  We are now up to about 500,000 people—I mean, $500,000 that we keep sending you all's way.

But, again, isn't that what we pay taxes for?  Why has FEMA fouled up so badly, and now they are seeing to it that people from outside your state are going to get rich of off Mississippi's suffering? 

PICKERING:  Unfortunately, they did before the storm national contracts.  And there is some role for national companies to be able to go, whether it's a hurricane in Florida or Mississippi or a fire or earthquake in California, for disaster recovery and relief. 

But they should reserve the greatest amount of the work for the local communities and the local companies.  And what we have seen in this case is less than 10 percent of the work being done by the local companies; 90 percent of the people are either no-bid contracts or these other large national contracts. 

Joe, I don't know if you know this.  The Corps of Engineers, to administer those contracts, is taking 21 percent off the top.  So, for the cleanup alone, that's $3 billion.  But the Corps of Engineers, a bureaucracy, that is not on the ground cleaning up, is taking 20 percent off the top.  So you have bureaucracy...

SCARBOROUGH:  So, Chip, they are taking—they are taking 20 -- they are taking 20 percent off the top.  And then you look at these no-bid contracts, which you look at all the trailers, and, you know...


PICKERING:  The trailers without keys. 

SCARBOROUGH:  We are paying—we are—yes, we are paying $80,000 for trailers that somebody in Mississippi could supply for $40,000 or $50,000.  And it all adds up.  We are wasting billions of dollars.  And that's billions of dollars that the people of Mississippi and Alabama and Louisiana aren't getting. 

Can we fix FEMA?  Is it a fixable bureaucracy? 

PICKERING:  We have to fix it.  We have to learn the lessons. 

We need to take FEMA outside of Homeland Security, remove those layers of bureaucracy that have been stacked up on top of it.  But we also need to more clearly define roles and missions.  I think pre-storm, in evacuation, security, critical infrastructure like communications, water, and power and fuel, I think DOD and the National Guard in a joint command should be responsible for those things. 

I think states should be in charge of recovery and cleanup.  FEMA can do pre-storm coordination and preparation, and they can give reimbursement to individuals and public entities.  But they are now a choke hold, a control point.  They—they—they prevent help that is greatly needed, and they slow down and depress the efforts of so many who are wanting to get help and relief and supplies where it needs to be. 

SCARBOROUGH:  No doubt about that, Chip. 

Hey, listen, thanks so much for being on tonight and telling us what's going on. 

And I will tell you what.  We in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY—and I mean it

·         all the generous people, again, that have contributed up to $500,000 to Christian Ministries, we are going to keep sending you all supplies as long as you need them.  Give our best to Leisha.  She is doing a great job, as well as you.  Thank you so much for being here. 

PICKERING:  Well, Joe, we will continue to give you updates on what's need in Mississippi.  And thank you and your wife and all your listeners who have contributed.  You all have been great for Mississippi. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, thank you so much, Chip.  God bless you. 

Now, coming up next, actor Donald Sutherland and his tearful rant against George Bush.  Some think big-name stars who are spouting off overseas are hurting Hollywood and America. 

Plus, we got a huge response from our exclusive honeymooner investigation.  Tonight, inside the investigation.  We are going to show you more details you haven't seen.

Plus, more on a possible indictment at the White House coming up.  We have got a huge night.  SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY is just getting started. 


SCARBOROUGH:  A drug scandal gripping the modeling industry right now.  We are going to take you inside that seedy business when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns.



Now, if a controversial Supreme Court pick in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina weren't enough for President Bush, now the Karl Rove CIA leak controversy is back in the news in a big way.  Federal prosecutors have accepted Rove's offer today to testify in front of a grand jury for the fourth time. 

NBC senior investigative correspondent Lisa Myers has that story. 


LISA MYERS, NBC CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over):  Karl Rove, the president's closest adviser, has already appeared before the grand jury three times.  Today, his lawyer says that, after “TIME” reporter Matt Cooper testified this summer about his conversations with Rove, Rove offered to answer any additional questions prosecutors might have. 

The lawyer says, on Friday, after “New York Times” reporter Judith Miller testified, special prosecutor Pat Fitzgerald accepted Rove's offer to answer more questions.  But, importantly, legal sources familiar with the case say Fitzgerald also sent a letter informing Rove that there is no guarantee that he won't be indicted and that his testimony can be used against him.  What does all this mean? 

STEPHEN SALTZBURG, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR:  It's an unusual situation and a treacherous one for anyone in Mr. Rove's position.  What it seems to mean is that he and his lawyers have made a judgment that the grand jury might indict him, and this is his last chance to talk them out of it. 

MYERS (on camera):  But Rove's lawyers insists that Rove is not a target, has not been informed he's a target, and that the prosecutor says he has not made up his mind whether to charge anyone. 


SCARBOROUGH:  I will tell you what, friends, this is so significant, one of the most significant developments in quite some time at the White House, the possibility, the possibility and only a possibility, of Karl Rove or other people at the White House being indicted over the CIA leak controversy. 

I will tell you what.  It is the latest in a long string of very troubling items for the president. 

With me now to talk about it is “Newsweek”'s Howard Fineman.

And, Howard, of course, all the buzz in Washington tonight is, an indictment could come down on Karl Rove's head.  Talk about that and talk about what it would mean for this White House. 


impossible to overstate the impact that something like that would have if,

·         and I stress if—it were to happen. 

The fact is that Karl Rove and George W. Bush have been joined at the hip politically for a quarter-century.  Karl Rove built George W. Bush's career, shaped his outlook of politics, gave him the strategy with which to win the White House, has been senior counselor and, you know, free to roam the White House and give advice and listen all around. 

I mean, he is practically a family member in the political sense.  If he were to be indicted, it would be an almost catastrophic blow to George Bush.  And, again, I stress if.  But the fact that he is so close to the president is what makes this such a big story.

And the other thing I should—I should—I should add here, Joe, is that I think Fitzgerald, even if he doesn't indict anybody, is probably going to come up with a report of some kind that is going to discuss all of the ins and outs of how the—you know, the leak happened.  And even if it were—is deemed not to be criminal, is going to throw a pretty harsh light on a lot of people in the White House, I think. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And it's not just Karl Rove who is being focused on. 

FINEMAN:  Right. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Obviously, Scooter Libby, one of the vice president's top people...

FINEMAN:  Right. 

SCARBOROUGH:  ... has got to be a point of focus, as well as possibly other people in the White House. 

FINEMAN:  Sure. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Who else may be targeted and, again, what does it mean for a White House already at historic lows in the poll ratings? 

FINEMAN:  Well, just think of this, Joe.  Karl Rove has been dealing simultaneously with trying to keep the Harriet Miers nomination on track with conservatives, you know, spending a lot of time over the weekend, you know, calling religious conservatives, trying to lay the groundwork for Harriet Miers, rather hurriedly, I would say, being on the phone on Monday doing the same thing, after Harriet Miers was announced, you know, Rove simultaneously trying to put out the fires politically in the administration, while it seems at the same time trying to protect himself politically, really under tremendous pressure personally and politically. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Talk about the Harriet Miers situation in closing here.  I mean, I have yet to talk to a conservative on the Hill that wants to see this woman sit on the Supreme Court. 

And you know what?  What is so interesting is, they are not even talking about ideology.  They are talking about cronyism.  It is a great insult to them that George Bush passed over some great conservative minds out there and instead chose someone who they consider, again, they consider, before the nomination process, as being very mediocre. 

FINEMAN:  Here's my—here's my sense of it, Joe. 

I talked to senators and staff today.  Harriet Miers will probably be confirmed, from what we know right this minute.  But my analogy is, it's like a brick wall with no mortar between the bricks.  You can pull out any one of these bricks, and the whole thing could collapse.  Right now, James Dobson is still on board of Focus on the Family, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention still on board. 

If one of those two guys were to bolt, I think the whole thing could collapse.  Senator George Allen is holding his—is holding his fire and his cards close to his vest.  He isn't going to say what he is going to do.  If somebody like that, with presidential aspirations and mainstream appeal, were to say no to this nomination, I think it could collapse. 

Right now, it's tenuously a go.  But it could collapse at any minute.  The amazing thing to me is, the Bush administration and Karl Rove have had to use a decade worth of chits just to get Harriet Miers back to zero at this point . 

SCARBOROUGH:  Unbelievable, very treacherous waters right now that the White House is swimming in. 

Thank you so much, Howard Fineman of “Newsweek.” 

FINEMAN:  Sure, Joe. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Greatly appreciate it. 

FINEMAN:  Sure, Joe.

SCARBOROUGH:  Now, of course, we have been talking about the Harriet Miers nomination.

To talk about that, let's bring in Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo.

Tom, we heard Howard talking...


SCARBOROUGH:  A man from your state, James Dobson.  I understand James Dobson came out supporting Harriet Miers early on, but I understand he is starting to back off.  A lot of concern from conservatives.  Are you concerned about it? 

TANCREDO:  Oh, man, I most certainly am. 

I, of course, will have no more ability to affect the decision than you or anybody else, except for a member of the Senate.  I won't have a vote in this, but I certainly have a concern about it.  I think that it was the wrong pick.  I believe that we have done a great deal of damage to the whole conservative movement.  I think that the president has done himself no favors or Republicans. 

All the way around, I can't figure this out.  For the life of me, I don't understand why we are doing it and why we have taken this extraordinary step of naming someone who is just simply a FOG, that is to say, a friend of George. 


SCARBOROUGH:  I want to ask you—a friend of George. 

Congressman, I want to ask you, why are movement conservatives, the very people who have supported this president from his first campaign in 1994 for Texas governor, why is it that the most conservative people out there are the ones that are most offended by this selection? 

TANCREDO:  Well, I can only tell you how I feel about it.  And I don't

know that—if we can extrapolate that to everybody in the movement, but I

·         I am offended because he has not given us someone who is going to be a power on the court.  He has given us someone who may even be a good vote on the issues.

And, fine.  Thank you.  I will be happy.  But it is not the person that we expected.  We expected someone who would actually be an intellectual powerhouse to move the court, to influence the court.  And I do not believe—you know, and no disrespect intended for Ms. Miers.  She may be a wonderful human being.  She is not an intellectual powerhouse.  We need it.  We deserve it.  And there are plenty of them out there. 

That's the other thing.  It isn't as if they are so slim pickings, that everybody is running around thinking, oh, my God, who can we possibly get with the intellect, the ability, the background?  And nobody.  I guess we are going to have to just settle for Ms. Miers, a friend of George. 

No, that wasn't it.  There are plenty of good people.  And we have a bench, and we didn't go to the bench. 


TANCREDO:  Just—just—it's amazing to me, Joe. 

SCARBOROUGH:  There are so many conservatives that are baffled right now. 

Final question, Congressman.  The president of the United States said, when it comes to this selection, you should trust him. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Do you trust him? 

TANCREDO:  No, sir, I don't.  I don't think even the president knows exactly what Ms. Miers is going to do.  He has never seen her—he has never seen anything about her that could tell you what she is going to do in cases that she would have heard, because she has heard none.

So, even the president, knowing what he thinks he knows about her, cannot be sure of what is going to happen out there.  I would rather have someone who has a track record.  Then we could all be sure.  Then we don't have to just trust George.  We could look at who they are, look at their record and determine whether they are going to be with us on the tough issues. 

I hope she is there as a vote, but I know what.  She is never going to be there as a power on this court, and we lost a great opportunity there. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Congressman.  Thank you so much for being with us.

TANCREDO:  All right, Joe. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Really appreciate you coming on and saying, unfortunately for this president, what thousands and thousands of conservatives are saying across Washington and America. 

Now, coming up next, more explosive details from our exclusive investigation into missing honeymooner George Smith IV.  We are going to take you inside the actual room where Smith was last seen at 4:00 a.m. and show you what we uncovered. 

Plus, super model Kate Moss, her career is on the ropes after being caught doing some very bad things on tape.  But her situation and the situation of the entire modeling industry could be getting worse very soon. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Our exclusive SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY investigation takes you on board the ship that George Smith IV was on with his lovely bride before he disappeared.  And we take you inside the cabin to tell you why the cruise industry's explanation for this disappearance just doesn't wash. 

That's coming up next, but, first, here's the latest news you and your family need to know.


SCARBOROUGH:  Kate Moss videotaped doing drugs.  It could have ruined her career.  Now she faces even bigger problems when she blows back to Britain—that and much more coming up.

But, right now, I want to welcome you back to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY. 

First, we are going to be asking, what happened to George Smith IV? 

Tonight, more explosive details from our investigation. 

Now, honeymooner George Smith disappeared three months ago from Royal Caribbean's Brilliance of the Seas between Greece and Turkey.  We sent a SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY producer aboard that ship in the Mediterranean. 

Tonight, he takes us inside the Smith cabin with our exclusive footage and into the heart of the investigation. 

With me now with that is producer Rich McHugh.  And we also have two other investigators who were on that ship, former FBI agent Clint Van Zandt and Chief Walt Zalisko.

Rich, let me start with you.

The big question is, how did George Smith IV die?  You know, cruise lines, as you know, Rich, love to say that it was either a drunk who fell overboard accidentally. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Or it's somebody who tried to commit suicide. 

You actually measured how long the fall was from George's cabin to the awning.  Could he have killed himself from that short distance?  How long was it? 

MCHUGH:  Well, it was approximately 21 feet.  I measured in inches, and actually pulled up the string and weight that I used to measure it, and then measured it in my room.  And it was a little bit over 21 feet, 21 and a quarter.

But, you know, the thing I was thinking when I was standing on that balcony, number one, I measured the railing.  And that was about four feet tall.  So, it would have been very hard to be pushed over that. 

And then, if you were to fall onto that awning that you are seeing right now, I just couldn't get it past in my head that that would create—you know, that would lead me to die.  I—I couldn't see it. 


SCARBOROUGH:  You know, there was a huge—there was a huge pool of blood also, again.  With the fall from that distance, which certainly wouldn't have made him feel any better when he got to the bottom of it.  But—again, but that picture that you got ahold of from a passenger... 

MCHUGH:  Right. 

SCARBOROUGH:  ... that showed the pool of blood, certainly, again, is that consistent with a fall of 21 feet, from what you saw? 

MCHUGH:  I didn't think so. 

To me, after studying this case for as long as we have and being on that balcony and knowing—one other thing I should point out, when looking down at the balcony and the awning, you can see, you can actually see about a four-foot box where they had clearly painted over something.

And you got to imagine that, if we know that they painted over what was that blood spot, we are looking at essentially where he potentially fell.  And, you know, one other thing I want to say is, looking over that balcony, I thought, OK, if I—if, you know, it's 4:00 a.m. and my wife had fallen over this ledge, and I wanted to get down there quickly, how could I do it? 

So, there's a couple scenarios.  I could, A, go down to the seventh

floor and knock on a couple of rooms frantically, which, if somebody were -

·         were doing that that night, you would have to wake a lot of people up. 

If you wanted to do it on the stealth, that gets more complicated.  And, actually, I searched for about two days, and I couldn't figure out how to get on that awning. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Couldn't figure out to get onto that awning.  So, what that suggests is—well, I will tell you what.  I don't want to answer the questions. 

Let me bring in Walt here. 

Walt, obviously, you are a law enforcement officer.  You were on that cruise.  Something just doesn't sound right here.  Does it add up to you that this guy could have fallen overboard because he was drunk or because he was trying to commit suicide? 

WALT ZALISKO, PASSENGER ON CRUISE:  Well, absolutely not, Joe. 

You know, first of all, the theory of someone committing suicide on this cruise is preposterous.  Somebody doesn't get married and spends all this money on this cruise and then commits suicide.  We have had reports of a struggle in that room, loud noises going on.  We have reports of blood in the room.  There is a lot of indication here and a lot of evidence that suggests that there was a crime committed here. 

We have heard that there was blood on the bed, on the towel, as well as on the floor in the room as well.  So, the bleeding started in the room and continued over the railing and onto that canopy. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Clint Van Zandt, it just doesn't add up. 

When you are looking at this as a former FBI agent, what are you looking for?  Where are the inconsistencies?  Where do you go with the investigation? 

CLINT VAN ZANDT, MSNBC ANALYST:  Well, you know, part of the inconsistencies, Joe, are going to be in the stories that you get in the suspects. 

You know, that's one of the first things the chief or I would do working a case like this.  You get everyone who has any knowledge.  You lock them into a statement.  And then you start to compare the statements.  And you use that to create a timeline.  When you start to find someone who has changed their story or whose story is inconsistent with all the other facts, one time, maybe, two times, gee, heck of a coincidence.  Three or more times, if you start to find these inconsistencies in your timeline, then you have got a problem. 

You know, I agree with the chief.  This is not a suicide-type case.  The challenge is, is this a horrible, horrible type of accident that has never been seen before like this, or is this, in fact, foul play?  And I think that's what the FBI is working hard, to put together the timeline, the witness statements...


VAN ZANDT:  ... everything else to suggest, is this foul play, and, if so, who is responsible?

SCARBOROUGH:  Clint, I want to put up right now a video of somebody that was on the cruise.  He was actually a crew member on the cruise.  Reports are that this man that you see with the short hair that works in the casino left with George Smith IV's wife. 

Many people believe that she was very drunk.  Some people wondered whether the crew was working with other people to try to separate the two.  But, you know, Clint, Rich McHugh, our producer that went on board, brings up a very interesting point.  It is extremely difficult to find the awning that George Smith IV fell on to, said it took him several days to figure out exactly where it was.

Does that suggest that maybe somebody with intimate knowledge of this cruise ship was able to figure out how to get on to the awning and possibly get rid of the body? 

VAN ZANDT:  Well, that's one of the facts you have to consider, Joe. 

Now, there are multiple scenarios. 

One, of course, is that, through some tragic accident, George Smith fell over the side, injured himself on this awning, perhaps had fallen in his room and then fell over the side, laid there for a while, tried to get up, and then zigged when he should have zagged and fall all the way over the side. 

Now, the cruise line may well want us to believe that, and that may be the case.  But the next one is, if he got there by nefarious purposes, if someone pushed him, shoved him, threw him over the side, and he hit there and laid and started to bleed out, then, can you put yourself in the role of the offender?  You look over the side and you say that guy is laying there, and he is the one witness that can link me in. 

Then you have got to figure out a way to get him off that awning.  Are you like Rich?  You are a passenger.  You don't know how to find that.  It takes you hours perhaps to figure out to how to get over.  Do you drop over the side, like Batman, and let yourself down to the awning?  Or, if, on your yellow legal pad, Joe, one-half said maybe a crew member, the other half said maybe the suspects, the other suspects we have, if, in fact, you think it takes crew knowledge to get that—that awning, then you have to look at the suspects from the casino. 

SCARBOROUGH:  That certainly is what it's looking like to me. 

Thanks so much. 

MCHUGH:  Can I jump in here for a second, Joe? 

SCARBOROUGH:  Certainly. 

MCHUGH:  One thing I didn't say last night, in my conversation with Lloyd (ph) and Christian (ph), the casino manager and the blackjack dealer, is that, I said, well, your timeline doesn't gel up with this other timeline.  What do you think happened?  And they both kind of said, you know, we don't know, but we—probably fell over, probably fell overboard.  He was smoking a cigar and fell overboard. 

And I said, OK, you honestly believe that?  And they said, yes. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, you know what?  That's just more of the same. 

I mean, that's—when somebody disappears on these cruise ships, you always have the cruise line lawyers saying that it was either a suicide or somebody got drunk and fell overboard.  It just doesn't wash here. 

Rich McHugh, Walt Zalisko and Clint Van Zandt, thanks so much for being with us tonight. 

Right now, I am joined by Tucker Carlson.  He is the host of “THE


Tucker, I will tell you what.  The situation in Washington, D.C...


SCARBOROUGH:  ... getting crazier by the minute. 

CARLSON:  It is getting...

SCARBOROUGH:  What's—what's on “THE SITUATION” tonight? 

CARLSON:  It's totally out of control.

And the most out-of-control thing I have heard this year is the new line from the White House that, if you have questions about Harriet Miers' fitness for the Supreme Court, you're a sexist and an elitist.  Are you an sexist and an elitist? 


CARLSON:  We are going to get a member of the Republican National Committee on and have him explain how people who have got legitimate concerns, most of them conservatives and evangelicals, are now sexists.  That's—liberals use that line.  Since when is the White House using it?  It's like the world turned completely upside down.  We are going to get into it pretty deeply. 

SCARBOROUGH:  It has turned upside down.  Nobody has ever accused an Alabama graduate of being an elitist, Tucker.


SCARBOROUGH:  So, I think I'm safe tonight.

CARLSON:  You got that going for you. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Thanks for being with us.

CARLSON:  Thanks, Joe. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right. 

And, friends, make sure you tune into “THE SITUATION” coming up next at 11:00.  It's hot.  It's must-see TV.  You don't want to miss it. 

Now, coming up next, Donald Sutherland, just the latest star to spout out overseas.  Are movie stars' words dangerous to America? 

Plus, supermodel Kate Moss, her bad behavior caught on tape.  It's costing her millions in endorsement deals.  And now her troubles could just be the beginning. 



DONALD SUTHERLAND, ACTOR:  We have children.  How dare we take their legacy from them?  How dare we?  It's shameful. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Shameful, just shameful.  That was...


SCARBOROUGH:  That was Donald Sutherland recently crying to the BBC about the Bush administration after calling them, with great subtlety, inadequate liars. 

Now, he is just one celebrity bashing the United States while abroad. 

But many are asking whether angry words like his will have repercussions. 

With me to talk about Sutherland's words is James Hirsen.  His new book is “Hollywood Nation: Left Coast Lies, Old Media Spin, and the New Media Revolution.”

James, I am just curious.  Do you think ABC executives are sweating tonight because of Donald Sutherland's weepy performance in front of the BBC camera? 

JAMES HIRSEN, AUTHOR, “HOLLYWOOD NATION”:  You know, they—sure, they might be, because Donald Sutherland is a brand.  And what he did was far from subtle.  And people are sick and tired of celebrities who go overseas and stand on foreign soil and act with this sort of unseemly—as I read about in my book, this uninformed, exaggerated rhetoric that actually hurts our image.  It undermines our morale.

And, look, here's a guy.  He's a male.  He breaks down crying and blubbering and sobbing.  Doesn't he know the metrosexual thing is over?

But I do understand one thing, Joe.  He—he can't cry in this TV series from ABC, this Hillary Clinton campaign commercial, because he plays the typical Hollywood heartless Republican. 

SCARBOROUGH:  No doubt about it.  I mean, it's a two-dimensional character.  He is the Republican villain.  Of course he is the Republican villain.  How fascinating.  How multidimensional.  How edgy.

But, James, you know, the thing is, it used to be Hollywood stars could get away with saying just about anything.  And a lot of Americans are starting to fight back, and we have something like this show, where it's like $180,000 for a 30-second ad. 

HIRSEN:  Yes. 

SCARBOROUGH:  I mean, that could cost ABC big money, right? 

HIRSEN:  Oh, absolutely. 

Well, look what happened to Whoopi Goldberg during the campaign.  She did something that interfered with her secondary meaning, her image, and the Slim-Fast people dropped her as a spokesperson.  So, a Hollywood star is a product.  And when they go overseas, they are a de facto ambassador. 

SCARBOROUGH:  I would guess most Americans would be shocked if they really know firsthand what these Hollywood stars were saying in Berlin, in Paris, in London, about their country. 

HIRSEN:  It is this republic form of government that allows them the freedom to get wealthy, people like Donald Sutherland and, more recently, Antonio Banderas.  And these people, by the way, are not American citizens.  Donald Sutherland is a Canadian citizen, but he is known as a Hollywood star. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Finally, James, give us a prediction.  Do you think “Commander in Chief,” do you think Donald Sutherland, do you think ABC is going to be hurt by this flap in the end? 

HIRSEN:  I actually don't think so, because “Commander in Chief” has taken on the quality of a political cause.  As a matter of fact, they have groups that are supporting it, using the same techniques as, the White House Project being one, organizing house products, projects, and house parties and premieres.

And they are basically acting as promotional agents for the series. 

So, I think it's going to continue to be successful. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Thanks a lot, James.  As always, greatly appreciate you being with us. 

HIRSEN:  Thank you, Joe. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And, coming up, one of the hottest models in the world in a downward spiral, thanks to a shocking act caught on tape, and things could be getting worse for Kate Moss and the modeling industry. 

That's coming up next.


SCARBOROUGH:  You know, there are so many young girls and preteens and teenage girls that want to grow up and be a model.  And, if they want to, then one of their role models would be supermodel Kate Moss.

But she has been making headlines around the world for all the wrong reasons, for getting caught on camera snorting multiple lines of cocaine a few weeks ago.  Moss has reportedly entered rehab in Arizona and apologized.  But is this story really about the underside of the modeling world? 

I am joined now by Rebecca Traister.  She's of, who has covered the story. 

Rebecca, thanks for being with us. 

And I will ask you that same question.  Is this story really about Kate Moss, or is it more about, again, a modeling industry that for some time has had this seedy underside? 

REBECCA TRAISTER, SALON.COM:  Well, in part, it's about Kate Moss.

It's obviously the story of what happened to her and she got caught.  But I think she is being used as an example and perhaps is being used as an example by an industry that wants to distance itself from a habit that is very common in the industry as a whole.  I think that she is being put in the stocks, basically, and, you know, all of the companies that have severed their relationship with her are saying, we are shocked and dismayed that a model is doing cocaine.


TRAISTER:  But, in fact, cocaine is very rampant in the fashion industry. 


TRAISTER:  And a lot of the...

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, you know, Rebecca, I—the only reason I know that is because you hear models that get out of the industry and say they don't want their children, if they have daughters, to get into the industry.  They all talk about how widespread drug abuse is in modeling.  Why is that? 

TRAISTER:  Well, there are a lot of reasons.  It's also people who are still in the industry.

Naomi Campbell has admitted to having a cocaine problem.  Donatella Versace has been in treatment for cocaine addiction.  Kate Moss had been and had admitted being in rehab in 1988.  In part, it has to do with the lifestyle.  This is part of this world.  And it's a world that is fueled by drugs.  In part, it has to do with the look that is demanded from these women. 

What these companies are selling is a feminine look that is not healthy, whether that's because of drug addiction, drug use, cigarettes, nicotine, eating disorders.  These women are very, very thin women.  It's a look that Kate Moss helped pioneer in part. 


TRAISTER:  She was a waif model.  And she came in under the banner heroin chic in the early '90s.  I mean, drugs and this particular look have always been associated. 

And she heralded an era in which all the models—if you look through the magazines right now, you will see jutting collar bones and sunken cheeks and sort of hollowed-out eyes.  And that is not a look of health.


TRAISTER:  That is not a look of a well-fed woman.  And that is what we are told is beautiful.  And that's what 15-year-old girls are looking at in fashion magazines and seeing. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Not good news.

Now, if you look at me, obviously, you can tell I am well fed, so you can tell I don't have a drug habit. 

But let's talk—let's talk about Kate Moss and what is going to happen to her.  Do you think she is going to face jail time for this? 

TRAISTER:  I don't know.  I don't know enough about the British legal system. 

The reports now today in “The Sun” are that she will be arrested, if she goes back to Britain, which I assume she will.  She has a daughter there.  She is reportedly in rehab right now, and she may drug—she may face jail time.  It's a Class A narcotic.  It's illegal. 

And I believe that it was reported in “The Sun” that she is being arrested for distributing the cocaine, in addition to taking it, for handing it out. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Thank you so much. 

Of course, even on that issue, Rebecca, there are others that are saying she won't be arrested.  So, I will guess we will just have to wait and see.


TRAISTER:  It's possible that she won't be.  It's possible that it's -

·         they are using it to grandstand and that she will be just fine. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes.  We will see. 

All right.  Thanks so much, Rebecca.  Greatly appreciate you being with us.

Stay with us.  We'll be right back.


SCARBOROUGH:  Earlier today, I talked with Ashley Smith.  She is that remarkable young woman who turned in the Atlanta courthouse shooter. 

Here's some of what she had to say. 


ASHLEY SMITH, FORMER HOSTAGE:  From the moment I turned around and he was there with the gun at the front door, until that moment when I chose not to do the drugs, the whole time, I didn't have any hope that I was going to make it out of there alive. 


SCARBOROUGH:  And, tomorrow night, we are going to have my interview with Ashley and Rick Warren, author of “The Purpose Driven Life” that may have helped save her and other lives. 

That's all the time we have for tonight.  “THE SITUATION WITH TUCKER CARLSON” starts right now.



Content and programming copyright 2005 MSNBC.  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.  Transcription Copyright 2005 Voxant, Inc. ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon MSNBC and Voxant, Inc.'s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.