TRANSCRIPT: # 122300cb.471

SECTION: NEWS; INTERNATIONAL

LENGTH: 7224 words

HEADLINE: SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY For December 23, 2003

BYLINE: Joe Scarborough

GUESTS: Rob Sherman; Jonathan Morgan; Joshua Carden; Doug Morgan; Mary Schiavo; John Loftus; Ed Shohat; Julian Epstein; Jack Burkman; Natasha Lapiner-Giresi

HIGHLIGHT: A judge says Rush Limbaugh's medical records are fair game. Was Limbaugh blackmailed by his housekeeper? Al Qaeda reportedly still wants to use commercial jets to attack U.S. cities. Are schools stealing Christmas away from America's kids?

BODY:

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: Tonight, a judge rules: no privacy for Rush Limbaugh.

You're about to enter SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY. No passport required, no invasion of privacy allowed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: The occasion for silence has now ended, because of the medical records hearing that occurred yesterday here in Palm Beach County Circuit Court.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCARBOROUGH: A judge lashes out -- or a judge said Rush's medical records are fair game. And Limbaugh lashes out at the DA's office for leaking false stories to the press. And the press are rushing to judgment.

Plus, Rush says he was blackmailed by his housekeeper. But Wilma Cline's attorney is here to respond.

And new terror in the skies. Al Qaeda still wants to use commercial jets to attack U.S. cities. But the next time, could the hijacker be your pilot?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JERRY FALWELL, CHANCELLOR, LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: We throw God, prayer, Bible reading out of public schools and now the Ten Commandments out of the courthouses and schools.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCARBOROUGH: Some say schools are stealing Christmas from your kids. But we're going to tell you about one little boy's fight to take it back.

Hey, welcome to the show.

Now, Rush Limbaugh has a big problem. And it has got nothing to do with prescription drugs. It is time for tonight's "Real Deal."

Now the king of talk radio is a marked man. And the weapons his hunters are using are tabloid magazines, false press leaks and anonymous government sources. Unfortunately for Limbaugh and his defense team, the media is gleefully sucking up every negative report that could possibly lead to Rush's untimely demise.

And if you want to see just how shaky the state's case against Limbaugh is, just follow its timeline. Of course, it began with a tabloid story, which was followed by government sources leaking stories claiming that Rush was involved in a drug ring. Then we heard that Rush was involved in drug trafficking, and, finally, that Rush was involved in money laundering.

But, folks, for the record, Rush Limbaugh made $35 million last year. Now, do you or does anybody really believe that this gazillionaire would leave his Palm Beach Estate, drive up the coast, sell capsules of Xanax and Ambien to South Florida surfers and college students for $10 a pop? Well, obviously, somebody in the prosecutor's office does or else they would not be leaking these conspiracy theories to the press.

Now, whether Limbaugh's critics like it or not, the man had a severe back and neck condition. He made a mistake and he overmedicated himself. But suggesting that the $35 million man would get involved in drug rings or pain pill trafficking, that may sell newspapers, but, in the end -- and I'm telling you, this is going to happen -- in the end, it is only going to damage the credibility of a state prosecutor that a number of Americans are growing to believe is politically motivated and is pushing a case without merit.

And that's tonight's "Real Deal." Now, Rush Limbaugh and his attorneys are not happy about the ruling. And Rush came out swinging on his radio show earlier today. Reading a statement from his attorney, Roy Black, who is also an NBC analyst, this is what Rush told his listeners.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LIMBAUGH: "And he should not have to sacrifice his privacy to prove his innocence. The burden is on the prosecutor's office, not only to prove otherwise, but also to go through the appropriate legal process that protects an individual's right to privacy. We are confident we will prevail on appeal."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCARBOROUGH: Now, of course, that was Rush Limbaugh. It sounded like he was talking in third person. But he explained to his audience that he was reading a statement and he is not -- he is not a guy that goes around speaking about himself in third person, unlike a lot of politicians that we interview on this show.

Anyway, with me now to talk about this case is defense attorney and public defender Natasha Lapiner-Giresi. We've got Democratic strategist Julian Epstein and Republican strategist Jack Burkman.

Natasha, what do you make of the judge's ruling today?

NATASHA LAPINER-GIRESI, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It seemed to me, he was basing his ruling partially on the fact that another judge had found probable cause to issue the warrant.

He said, well, that judge found probable cause to issue the warrant and I think that this paperwork is going to have relevant information for the investigation. And Roy Black came out and he said, they are not going to find relevant information. They are not going to find anything in that paperwork that shows judge -- excuse me, doctor shopping. And that's why he's appealing.

(CROSSTALK)

JACK BURKMAN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Joe, I got to be honest with you. This whole thing is starting to make me absolutely sick.

When this story first hit, I was ready to criticize Limbaugh. And I watched very closely to see if he would call himself a victim. But the reason why Rush Limbaugh is a hero, he stood up and said, first and foremost, I am not a victim. But what really is driving me crazy are people like our friend Julian Epstein, are all over the airwaves. Suddenly, they do not believe in privacy anymore.

I remember Julian two years ago arguing that Gary Condit should have a zone of privacy, that his medical records, that his personally records, that his family life, that he should not be tried in the court of public opinion. I remember our friend Julian five years ago on this air, in this time slot, arguing the president was entitled to privacy.

(CROSSTALK)

BURKMAN: But, suddenly, Joe, was has changed? What, I ask you, has changed? Is it -- is there a political change? That's the question tonight.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Julian, does Rush Limbaugh have a right to privacy that's being violated by state prosecutors in Palm Beach County?

JULIAN EPSTEIN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, first, let me say to Jack I think his statement is a little bit silly. He is telling people what I say before I have even said it. And if he would sit back and hold back his dander for a second, he might learn a thing or two.

First of all, I think the privacy argument is the wrong argument for Rush Limbaugh to be making and his attorney to be making. You forfeit your privacy relationship with a physician, as do you with an attorney or any other privileged relationship, if that relationship is used to advance what prosecutors can argue is a criminal activity.

I think there is a -- there is not a very strong privacy argument here. I do think, however -- I say this as an attorney, I say this as a Democrat -- that this is a bad prosecution. I think, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, the prosecutor should not be prosecuting this case. I think Mr. Limbaugh has -- it wasn't a backache, as you said, Joe.

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: Can we please not interrupt each other tonight?

I think the issue is that he has an addiction, not a backache, Jack and Joe. And I think what he needs is, he needs therapy, not a pink jumpsuit.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Well, hold on a second, Jack.

But don't you think, Julian, that the state attorney in South Florida, and maybe that office -- we don't know exactly where these leaks are coming from. The press is saying it is coming from government sources. But, of course, we get this information leaked to "The National Enquirer." And then we get leaks that Rush Limbaugh's involved in a drug-trafficking ring. And then we get other leaks that he's involved in money laundering.

EPSTEIN: Yes.

SCARBOROUGH: Don't you think, in the end, the state prosecutor's only shooting himself in the foot by trying his case...

EPSTEIN: Yes, yes.

SCARBOROUGH: ... through leaks.

EPSTEIN: Absolutely.

As you remember, a couple years ago, Joe, you and I used to talk about the issue of leaks quite a bit. I think leaking information to the press is a terrible sin by the prosecutor, for a number of reasons, one of which, it can undermine his own case. So I think this is a terrible way for him to do business.

But I have to say, the irony is extraordinary, to hear conservatives out there talking about leaks, talking about hanging people in the press. Were this a Democratic icon that were out there tonight, whether there were credible allegation that he had violated the drug laws, whether or not you think this is a good prosecution or not.

(CROSSTALK)

BURKMAN: You feel this way about a medical issue.

EPSTEIN: Jack, hold your dander. Joe will come to you, OK. Why don't we speak one at a time and we can have a more intelligent conversation that way?

SCARBOROUGH: OK. Finish up, Julian.

EPSTEIN: I think the irony here is, if this were a Democratic icon who arguably had violated the drug laws, you would hear Republicans out there saying, oh, we have zero tolerance. We can't allow this to happen. What will this mean to the children?

The extraordinary turnabout on the conservative side of this argument is quite extraordinary.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Jack Burkman, are Republicans being hypocrites here and rushing to the defense of Mr. Limbaugh?

BURKMAN: I can't believe -- I am almost falling out of my chair here.

Julian, he should remember that this is about drug use. The charges here are about one-twentieth as serious as the charges against Gary Condit, and yet he is supporting all kinds of disclosure.

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: I am saying this is a bad prosecution, Jack. Are you listening to what I say?

BURKMAN: I'm listening. I'm listening.

EPSTEIN: I think it's a bad prosecution. It should not be prosecuted.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: All right, let's go to Natasha for a second.

Natasha, this is how Rush Limbaugh sees the politics of this case against him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LIMBAUGH: My friends, it is and has been obvious to me for the longest time that all these leaks were an attempt to try me in the court of public opinion.

The Democrats in this country still cannot defeat me in the arena of political ideas. And so now they are trying to do so in the court of public opinion and the legal system. I guess it is payback time. And since I'm not running for office, they can't get to me that way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCARBOROUGH: Natasha, is this case, in the end, nothing more, nothing less than a political lynching of Rush Limbaugh?

LAPINER-GIRESI: I have really been thinking about this since this all came out. And it could be, but it could also be that they have got themselves a big fish.

There could be someone in that office that is making these leaks, that is trying to make kind of a reputation for themselves, that this is going to be their big case that is going to take them farther. And what I find absurd in this case -- and I have heard everybody say it -- this is an addict. This is someone who was buying drugs because he was addicted to drugs. Yet, from everything I am hearing the woman, Cline, who leaked the first story to "The National Enquirer," has received immunity from this same prosecutor's office.

And I think, in every state, at least in New York state, I know for sure, that if she was giving Rush Limbaugh drugs, she is a dealer. She is not an addict. So why is she getting immunity?

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: We are going to have much more to come on this on SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, including, we are going to be talking to Ms. Cline's attorney.

Now, Rush said he paid his former maid to keep quiet, but her attorney says that's bogus. And we are going to be talking to him next.

Plus, John Malvo receives an early Christmas present this year, his life. Virginia jurors decided the sniper did not deserve to die. Buddy, I got big issues with that.

Plus: poor Rudolph. There's only so much ribbing one reindeer can take. We are going to tell you how one unlucky reporter learned that lesson firsthand.

Stick around. Ho, ho, ho. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH: Rush Limbaugh says the charges against him are political and that he is a victim of blackmail.

That's straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH: Now, the media frenzy over Rush Limbaugh's addiction to painkillers all started with a report in "The National Enquirer." And "The National Enquirer" said Rush's former maid, Wilma Cline, supplied him with those painkillers.

And yesterday, Rush's attorney, Roy Black, accused her of trying to blackmail him for $4 million. We asked Roy Black to come on the show tonight. He could not be here. We wanted him on because with us tonight is Wilma Cline's attorney, Ed Shohat.

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

And let's start with the questions that are out there in the press. Did your client try to blackmail Rush Limbaugh?

ED SHOHAT, ATTORNEY FOR WILMA CLINE: Absolutely not.

It make no sense. Think about it, Joe. What did Rush Limbaugh have to hide that would be worth $4 million? Just by making that allegation, he is virtually confessing to everything that the Clines told the state attorney's office and "The National Enquirer." The allegation has been proven to be absolutely false. It just makes no sense from top to bottom.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Ed, how is the allegation -- I understand that Mr. Black came out and said she tried to extort $4 million from Rush. You say it has been proven false. How has it been proven false?

SHOHAT: Well, look, what's lost in this whole dialogue here is the fact that the Clines, a year ago now, went voluntarily to the state attorney's office and revealed to the state attorney's office their conduct and the conduct of Rush Limbaugh and others.

This resulted in an investigation. I don't know anything about leaks. I don't believe the state attorney's office in West Palm Beach is responsible for leaks. But anything is possible. But I do know that the state attorney's office in West Palm Beach has acted, in my view, with the utmost responsibility in not going off and immediately charging Rush Limbaugh and going after him.

They focused on the supply side of the investigation. And there are reports out there that have been reported continually about that aspect of the investigation and how successful it has been. They have never charged Rush Limbaugh.

SCARBOROUGH: Ed, are you surprised that Roy Black would come out and claim that your client tried to get $4 million? And can I ask you, did she get any payment whatsoever from Rush Limbaugh? Forget the $4 million. Did she get paid $400 or $4,000 to keep quiet?

SHOHAT: Joe, I will answer your second question first. And I will answer it in two parts.

Yes, she got paid by Rush Limbaugh. The details of those payments are in "The Enquirer" story. All you need to do is read "The Enquirer" story. They are set out here. I am not going to rehash them in this context. Whether or not she got paid to remain quiet, you will have to ask Rush Limbaugh what his intentions were in paying her.

The strange thing about it is, he claims blackmail. He had her sign promissory notes, notes by which she promised to repay him that money. I am not saying that he ever demanded repayment of that money, but he had her sign promissory notes. Have you ever heard somebody who was blackmailed have the blackmailer sign promissory notes? It is absurd.

(CROSSTALK)

SHOHAT: That's why, combined with the tapes that have his voice demanding the drugs -- and your panelists said he was an addict. And that's right. And I agree. This needs to be treated as a medical and psychological issue, rather than a law enforcement issue.

But that is not for me to decide. But she has turned over also the e-mails which went for years, with him demanding these drugs. And in combination, there is not a hint over all of this time of any blackmail, of any extortion or anything of that nature.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Ed, what about -- let me ask you, and then we are going to open up to the panel and I want to ask you to stick around.

SHOHAT: Go ahead.

SCARBOROUGH: A lot of people are wondering how much money she got paid by "The National Enquirer" to tell her story. And what I would like to know is, did she tell her story to the state attorney before "The National Enquirer" paid her or vice versa?

SHOHAT: I will answer your first question. We are not discussing anything about her arrangements with "The National Enquirer." I have not just selected you for that. That's been the policy across the board.

Now I will answer your second question, which is that she went to the state attorney 10 months before "The National Enquirer" ever entered the picture.

SCARBOROUGH: OK, so she is not telling anybody how much she got paid by "The National Enquirer."

SHOHAT: She is not discussing anything about her arrangements with "The National Enquirer."

SCARBOROUGH: OK. Now, we heard before that the state attorney may have done a deal with her. Does she have any charges pending against her right now for providing Rush Limbaugh with illegal prescription drugs?

SHOHAT: No, she does not.

And we are not discussing her relationship with the state attorney's office. There is obviously an investigation going on. We are respecting that investigation. And we are not going to discuss at all the relationship of the Clines with the state attorney's office, except to point out again that, before there was even the remotest hint of an investigation of anyone, including Rush Limbaugh, in this case, the Clines came to me and asked me to help them report what they did and others did to law enforcement authorities. That's what they did.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: All right, let's bring back our panel now.

And I want to play for our panel what Rush had to say about how the story started.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LIMBAUGH: Now, let me take you back to the beginning of this. Do you recall how you first heard of this story, ladies and gentlemen? It was in a tabloid newspaper, nothing from law enforcement. You first heard about this in a tabloid newspaper. And everything in that tabloid newspaper article was accepted as gospel. The media ran with it. It was the truth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCARBOROUGH: Natasha, how tough is it going to be for Rush's attorney to win a case that's being tried in the newspapers, and yes, that had its genesis in the tabloids?

LAPINER-GIRESI: It is just so bizarre to me that we are all sitting around talking about this and Rush Limbaugh has not even been arrested yet.

I have to remind myself of that sometimes when I'm reading all of the articles. And the question I have for Ed is, did the state attorney's office subpoena your client's bank records, just like they subpoenaed or got a search warrant for Rush Limbaugh's medical records, to make sure that everyone that they are using for their case is on the up-and-up?

SHOHAT: Let me tell you this. I am not going to answer specifics about what the state attorney's office investigation included or did not include.

I will say this to you. The Clines went into the state attorney's office and literally undressed themselves for the state attorney's office, in a figurative sense, as to everything about their lives and everything that they had done. They turned over every piece of information that the state attorney -- that they had and have turned over every piece of information that the state attorney's office has ever requested concerning this case.

BURKMAN: Natasha, I will tell you what I think is going on here.

I think the reason the state attorney's office is not going after Ed's client is because they need his client to remain credible, because they need that client to go after Rush Limbaugh. They have no interest in the client, obviously.

And I think what's going on here is, they need that client to remain credible, to remain viable in the media. So they can't do anything that is going to hurt her, because the target -- they have a political target. They have a political objective. And that is to bring down Rush. And if anything taints this woman, that could impede that.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Go, Julian.

SHOHAT: Can I say something here?

SCARBOROUGH: Oh, sure, Ed. Go, Ed.

SHOHAT: If I'm up, my answer is very simple.

If the state attorney's office had a political agenda in this case, they had an undercover operation in effect for nearly a year. They had the man's taped -- voice on tape demanding the drugs. They had hundreds of e-mails from him demanding the drugs. They could have engaged in an undercover investigation before this ever came out, if that was really their agenda. And all you experienced lawyers there know, he would have had no place to turn.

They did not do that. And, look, I'm a criminal defense lawyer. If I see politics in a case, I'm the first one to charge it. I will be right out in front with all of you leading the charge. This case has not been handled politically by the state attorney's office.

SCARBOROUGH: All right, Julian Epstein, let me give you the last word.

EPSTEIN: Well, I think the blackmail, we have no facts on which to judge.

I think that the point that I would like to make is this. I think there is plenty of evidence here that the prosecutor has engaged in overreaching tactics which I do not agree with. I can say that as a Democrat, somebody who disagrees with Mr. Limbaugh's political views. I think conservatives rarely show that type of political consistency.

Secondly, I would like to make the point that there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Americans, disproportionately African-American, who are in prison for five, 10, 15, 20 years on mandatory minimum laws, laws which I think you voted for when you were in Congress, Joe, for offenses that are not too dissimilar, problems relating to addiction, possessory offenses that didn't involve any violent crime.

(CROSSTALK)

EPSTEIN: So to hear conservatives out there now saying that these drug prosecutions are a terrible thing, when they have, for years, supported such Draconian laws that have resulted in so much unfairness in the criminal justice system seems to me slightly contradictory.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: All right, we are going to have to leave it there. Thank you so much, Julian, Natasha, Jack. And a special thanks, Ed, for coming in and talking about the case and your client. I hope all of you have a very, very happy holiday.

Now it is time for "Flyover" of SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, a look at some of the stories in the flyover space between Manhattan and Hollywood, the parts of the country that the mainstream media ignores.

In Las Vegas, magician Roy Horn from Siegfried & Roy finally gets to go home from the hospital. Of course, you know he was the one that was mauled by one of his tigers in his act back in October.

And, in Illinois, a "Flyover" follow-up. We told you about an Illinois governor wanting to buy cheaper prescription drugs from Canada for state employees. The FDA told him today no way, saying it would be illegal to do so.

And, in Ohio, the people at Cedar Point Amusement Park found a different way to help needy kids. They picked up more than $7,000 worth of change that was thrown into the fountains and that fell out of roller coaster rider's pockets. The park workers then gave it all to a local children's charity. Good job.

And still to come: Airlines are reinforcing cockpit doors to protect you from terrorists. The problem, the terrorists may already be inside the cockpit. We'll talk about that chilling report coming up next.

Then, I've got issues with, who else, Howard Dean. He's trying to tell the American people some things that just are not right and take away Bush's victories in the war on terror. Good luck, buddy.

But first, let's go to the MSNBC News Desk for the latest headlines.

(NEWS BREAK)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH: If you talk to the White House, they will tell you, it is scary out there. And, of course, there are reports that the White House is more nervous about the terror threat to America now than ever before. Anti-aircraft missiles and fighter jets are patrolling over the skies over our cities across America. And intelligence officials say, al Qaeda kamikaze pilots may be working for foreign airlines.

John Loftus, you are tied in with our intelligence community. Is al Qaeda set to strike us again with suicide planes?

JOHN LOFTUS, INTELLIGENCE EXPERT: Oh, I think that's always been their intention.

There's been a lot of concern in the intelligence community that -- for example, there was a stolen jet aircraft that went missing in Africa. If that were painted with the colors of Federal Express or UPS, it could make a pretty dangerous instrument of war.

We also know, for example, there's 24 radiological bombs went missing from Transnistria. So, having your own airplane to deliver radiological weapons would be messy. It would not kill anyone. Radiological weapons are just a pain in the neck to clean up. They are panic weapons. But, yes, that's the nightmare scenario, that they come in with a plane disguised as cargo carrier.

Now, we have heard from the Israelis tonight there have been an interrogation of Arab pilots. Apparently, they have been cross-matching the al Qaeda training lists against people that have ever had aircraft training. And several pilots have been detained and some have been arrested. So perhaps this may be one of those cases where they have nipped it in the bud.

SCARBOROUGH: John, why is the White House so nervous right now? And, of course, we have heard reports that Osama bin Laden and his top deputy have actually approved these attacks. This is some pretty specific information that's scaring the White House, isn't it?

LOFTUS: Yes.

And the information is that there is going to be a concerted attack around the world by al Qaeda. For example, the Turks confirmed today that they have learned from their sources that the American Embassy and the Israeli Embassy in Turkey are going to be attacked, along with a shopping mall. Now, reports like that have been popping up all around the world.

Al Qaeda has let it be known that they have several U.S. cities that they want to target. They are not going to do it with passenger planes. But, unfortunately, our cargo air delivery system is very vulnerable. There are no bulletproof doors on a cargo plane.

SCARBOROUGH: Mary Schiavo, let me bring you in here. You're, of course, the former inspector general of the Department of Transportation.

What's your take on this latest crisis? Here we are, over two years separated from 9/11, and we are still concerned about our federal aviation system in America. What is your take on it?

MARY SCHIAVO, AVIATION EXPERT: Well, my take is, is that, in many ways, the political crisis has come home to roost.

Before, it was a new administration. And now they have had several important lessons in history, not the least of which is this scenario where several planes are hijacked, be they passenger or cargo -- both have happened in the past -- from foreign airports to attack U.S. targets. In 1970, it was five planes from Europe to be used to potentially attack the presidential palaces in the Middle East.

And then, of course, we had the Federal Express scenario in the United States, where it was one of their own pilots. And then everyone seems to forget the Egypt Air terrorist -- and I call it a terrorist attack -- where the Egypt Air pilot himself took down the plane carrying Egyptian military officers trained in the U.S. And so the reason that the huge crisis is here is, I think the administration, now with 9/11 under its belt, realizes the old line, this has never happened before, can't be used. It has.

SCARBOROUGH: Mary, how worried are you right now personally? Would you tell your family members that wanted to fly home to see you for the holidays, stay out of the skies?

SCHIAVO: Well, actually, for my work, I have to fly, so I am taking to the skies.

But, actually, I have tried to cut back on my family's flying. But that is not really an option in modern America. And what is going to happen is, most likely, they will use foreign airports, because I think one of the perceptions is that the TSA -- and, to a certain degree, they have helped -- that the TSA is better policing the United States and certainly is an improvement over what was there before.

SCARBOROUGH: John, last night, we had Congressman Chris Shays, whose tied in with the intelligence community. And he was blunt about the terror threat and said he would not be caught dead in Times Square on New Year's Eve.

Do you agree with him? How imminent is this threat? Is it possible that a foreign cargo plane could crash into Times Square on New Year's Eve?

LOFTUS: I think that is pretty remote. And I really disagree strongly with the congressman.

If we give in to the terrorists, they have won. We are not going to exchange our way of life. We are going to erect stronger defenses. There is an air cap over New York City. No plane is going to get out of its holding pattern and get anywhere near Manhattan without being shot down.

SCARBOROUGH: So if a plane starts flying towards the Empire State Building or Times Square, we scramble the jets and blow that plane out of the sky?

LOFTUS: That's the new rules. Understand, we don't have to wait for the president to give clearance. If it is an emergency case, the military commanders can give the go signal to take it down right there.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: John Loftus, let me ask you one other question here. I'm sorry to cut you off there.

LOFTUS: That's all right.

SCARBOROUGH: Is there an army of terrorists living among us? Because, certainly, judging by the reports from the government over the past couple days, that's the information we seem to be getting.

LOFTUS: Well, the FBI has publicly stated that they have six sleeper networks under observation in the U.S. I can't go into classified information, but I will say that the surveillance that's being done right now is a lot better than anyone imagines. They are doing a really credible, really good job. There is not an army among us, but there's a couple of companies of people we have to keep our eye on.

SCARBOROUGH: Hey, Mary, I have been saying for some time that I did not think the government was handling our aviation crisis and our aviation security issues as well as they should.

Why is it, as somebody who's worked in transportation at the highest levels, why is it that this issue of aviation safety is so difficult for our federal government to get their arms around?

SCHIAVO: Because aviation safety is about third on our list of priorities. No. 1 is the politics, and particularly international politics of putting restrictions on foreign carriers and foreign pilots and foreign commerce, comes in above that, and as does aviation economics.

And it is very expensive and it's politically costly to put the kinds of restrictions that are necessary to guarantee our safety, including things like -- for example, in December they announced they were finally excluding persons on the watch list. Well, the American citizens thought they had been doing that for two years. And so those sort of political compromises really destroy aviation security. And no one's been willing to tackle that, because the bottom line is economics.

SCARBOROUGH: All right, thank you so much, Mary Schiavo. And, as always, John Loftus, thank you for being with us. Have a safe and merry Christmas and holiday season.

And coming up next on SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL LARUFFA, SNIPER VICTIM: two people who committed the ultimate crime. One got the ultimate penalty and one didn't. I ask you why.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCARBOROUGH: Family members of the sniper victims express their disappointment that a Virginia jury did not sentence Lee Malvo to death. And now it is my turn. I've got issues.

But first: Jonathan Morgan wanted to pass out candy canes to his classmates, but the school would not let him spread his Christmas cheer -- how schools are stealing Christmas from your kids.

That's coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH: One school in Texas tried to stamp out religion in the classroom by banning candy canes; 8-year-old Jonathan Morgan brought candy canes to share with his classmates. Each candy cane had a message explaining the religious significance of that Christmas candy, but that was too much for the school to handle.

They banned the candy canes for being too religious -- at Christmas. Third-grader Jonathan Morgan is here, as is his father, Doug Morgan, and their attorney, Joshua.

Doug, let's begin with you. And tell our viewers what happened.

DOUG MORGAN, FATHER OF JONATHAN: Well, it is a case of political correctness spinning out of control. In an attempt for schools to not offend anyone, what's happened is, they have actually stepped all over and silenced religious expression at the school.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, tell me, who had the idea for your son to take the candy canes to school? Was it your idea? Was it your son's idea? Whose idea was it?

D. MORGAN: It was really a family idea. We talked about various things. And it was something that we all agreed would be the right choice.

SCARBOROUGH: Yes.

Well, let me bring in Joshua Carden. Joshua, of course, is representing the family.

Joshua, I understand you wrote a letter to the school district. What did that letter say?

JOSHUA CARDEN, ATTORNEY: That's correct, Joe.

We wrote a letter to the school district basically explaining to them that the Supreme Court has never said that you can't celebrate Christmas. We are not talking about official school-sponsored speech or the official school candy cane message here. This is a third-grade student wanting to share the Christmas spirit with his friends and his fellow classmates. And the school district acted like the Grinch in this case and said, no, you can't hand out your candy canes.

SCARBOROUGH: Now, there weren't just candy canes. There was also a message, though, related to Christmas, right?

CARDEN: That's correct.

SCARBOROUGH: And what did that message say on the candy cane?

CARDEN: The message just describes the legend of the candy cane and the religious significance attached to the candy cane.

And, actually, it was a candy cane shaped pencil. The school had already outlawed hard candy. So they sent candy cane-shaped pencils with the same message attacked.

SCARBOROUGH: That is just unbelievable. You outlaw hard candy. You outlaw candy canes. You outlaw religious messages at Christmas. That's interesting.

Let's go now to Jonathan.

Jonathan, can you tell me, why did you want to pass out candy canes to your classmates? And are you surprised that a lot of grownups are making such a big deal about it?

JONATHAN MORGAN, THIRD GRADER: Well, I wanted to share the goody bags because they had the message of Christ. And I'm surprised, because -- that other people won't let us bring in the goody bags.

SCARBOROUGH: Yes, it is remarkable.

Doug Morgan, what is your next step here? Of course, the religious message on each candy cane was not acceptable to the school district. Are you all going to sue the school district, appeal? What are you going to do?

D. MORGAN: Well, we are definitely going to move ahead and we are going to see the course. And the next step is to sue, because we have exhausted every other effort. And we really encourage others to stand up and really just take this utter absurdity out of our school.

SCARBOROUGH: All right, thank you so much, Doug and Jonathan Morgan. And, certainly, we appreciate Joshua Carden being here.

Now, let's bring in atheist advocate Rob Sherman.

And, Rob, I want to ask you, what is wrong with a young child handing out candy canes before a Christmas holiday?

ROB SHERMAN, ATHEIST ADVOCATE: Well, the problem is not political correctness.

The problem is that school officials are not adequately trained on these types of matters, how to handle it. And the two key words are systems and resources. The school officials -- school officials need a system for dealing with these types of things. And when they come across it, contact your resources. Resources are organizations such as mine, Rob Sherman Advocacy. You can contact us for a perspective on why they should allow this type of thing. There are a variety of other organizations. There are Christian organizations. Get an opinion from...

SCARBOROUGH: But, Rob, you're talking about resources here, Rob. I'm sorry to cut off. You're talking about resources, that they are not adequately equipped to handle this. It scares me that schoolteachers and principals across America aren't adequately equipped to handle an 8-year-old kid passing out candy canes.

SHERMAN: Well, that's the way it is, because, Joe, when you go to teacher college, you're taught how to teach math. You're taught how to teach science and English and social studies. You are not taught about state-church separation.

But organizations such as mine -- and you go to the Web site, RobSherman.com, we deal with these things all the time.

(LAUGHTER)

SHERMAN: Thank you, Joe.

SCARBOROUGH: Hold on. Let's get a flashing light here -- RobSherman.com. OK, please.

SHERMAN: Thank you.

SCARBOROUGH: If you're at home, sign on RobSherman.com, atheist Web site.

Now, Rob, now that we've promoted your Web site, I want you to answer my question. What's wrong with an 8-year-old kid passing out candy canes at Christmastime that have a religious message? That is not an infringement of the First Amendment, is it?

SHERMAN: You cannot discriminate against speech simply because it has a religious content. And that is the message that my organization would give to school officials.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Is it OK for the kid to pass out the candy cane?

SHERMAN: Well, the candy cane pen. They may have a policy against handing out actual candy, because kids might have diabetes or they might choke on it.

But my understanding is that this is sort of a candy cane-type pencil or pen with a message printed on it. And you allow kids to talk to each other. Let them have speech. There are very limited types of speech that should not be allowed in school. One is the commercial thing. You don't want to have somebody coming in. You don't want to have the kids selling things to each other.

SCARBOROUGH: All right, Rob, we're running out of time, Buddy. And I've promoted your Web site, so you got to answer my question, yes or no. Should this 8-year-old boy be able to pass out his candy canes that have a Christmas message on them, yes or no?

SHERMAN: A quick two-part answer. The first part is yes. And the second is, when you contact my organization, we will explain why it is OK, so you will be comfortable with it.

SCARBOROUGH: All right, Rob. And, of course, I have no idea how to contact your organization. If I'm at home tonight and there is an Internet connection somewhere around, how in the world would I contact your organization?

SHERMAN: You just go to RobSherman.com on the Web.

SCARBOROUGH: Oh, it is so easy, RobSherman.com on the Web. Go to it.

SHERMAN: Thanks, Joe.

SCARBOROUGH: And I think Rob and I may have finally agreed on something. It is not an infringement of the First Amendment for an 8-year-old boy to pass out candy canes at Christmastime. There is something seriously wrong in our schools. And I think it all starts with the NEA. But that's another segment on another night.

Now, coming up, you know your career is on the downslide when you stop making music with the Vulcan. I have got issues with William Shatner.

And it is Christmastime. We have got quite a little stocking stuffer for you. It is an iguana and it is about to attack.

(LAUGHTER)

SCARBOROUGH: Too good. Too good.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH: Hey, I've got that special holiday spirit, but I've still have got issues.

And I've got serious issues with the sentencing for Lee Malvo. He's, of course, one of the two D.C. snipers convicted of murdering off-duty FBI analyst Linda Franklin and terrorizing the entire region. Now, here's the response from one of the other victim's family members to the jury's decision not to give Malvo the death penalty.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VICTORIA BUCHANAN SNIDER, SISTER OF SNIPER VICTIM: We have lived with watching others die. They continued to kill. My brother was in the beginning part of it. But there are many other people from the beginning in Arizona and Georgia and Baton Rouge who are dead because of these men.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCARBOROUGH: And prosecutors elsewhere may seek the death penalty, but not all of them have a death penalty for juveniles. But they should.

This guy is getting out. He's getting life in prison. Yes, I think that's -- Hinckley got life in prison, right? Now he is, like, bowling with his 80-year-old parents.

And in the battle for the White House, it is sounding like the same old story. I've got issues with Howard Dean. First, he suggested Iraq's not better off without Saddam Hussein. After Saddam's capture, he says he does not think America is any safer. Now, after Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi agrees to get rid of his weapons of mass destruction, one of Dean's flacks said -- quote -- "The agreement is the result of years of diplomacy and sanctions conducted in concert with the international community, which Governor Dean believes is the most effective means of pursuing that goal."

Yes, right. Maybe Dean missed what Gadhafi told the Italian prime minister, that he is turning over his weapons because -- quote -- "I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq and I was afraid." Years of so-called diplomacy with Gadhafi got us nothing, until it was backed by the threat of force. Howard Dean doesn't get that. And because he doesn't get it, he is simply unelectable.

And just when you thought "Star Trek" conventions were on their last legs, Priceline.com comes along and gives hope to Trekkies everywhere, uniting William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy in a series of new ads coming out in January. And in the spirit of giving, Shatner just finished a new album featuring punk rocker Henry Rollins, country star Brad Paisley, and Joe Jackson. The album, produced by Ben Folds, will probably sound nothing like this.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

WILLIAM SHATNER, ACTOR (singing): Picture yourself in a boat on a river with tangerine trees and marmalade skies.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SCARBOROUGH: Unbelievable. And, of course, I think, if you want to download that, you can go to RobSherman.com.

Still to come: Animals have been attacking reporters for years.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The largest stakes that you find in the metroplex area...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

SCARBOROUGH: And Christmas is no exception -- when animals attack coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH: You and your family may be in the holiday spirit season, but one reindeer is not.

And, of course, there is a long history of reporters being attacked by animals. We dug up this old video. What a classic, this one is. Watch this one.

(LAUGHTER)

SCARBOROUGH: Beautiful.

Hey, happy holidays from all of us at SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY. We'll see you next week.

Return to John's Media Appearances Section