Transcript of 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for June 20, 2008

Guests: Dana Milbank, John Cusack, John Dean, Jonathan Alter, Chris Kofinis

Transcript:

KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST (voice over): Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow?

The Friday night polling stunner. “Newsweek” last month: Obama, 46; McCain, 46. Newsweek tonight: Obama, 51; McCain, 36, Obama by 15. Plus, he gets feed (ph) in our time, Senator Clinton to campaign with Obama one week from today.“86-ing the 527.” Moveon.org says its liberal 527 group will go dark, inspired by Obama‘s call that both sides should shutter the unchecked advertising of the groups, not that his holding his breath about McCain -

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BARACK OBAMA, (D) PRESUMPTIVE PRES. NOMINEE: You and I both know that 527 pop up pretty quickly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: The Democratic sell-out. The House votes aye and key senators, Obama included, say they‘ll vote yes if telecom immunity is still in the FISA bill.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH, (D) OHIO: Under this bill, large corporations and big government can work together to violate the United States Constitution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: The McClellan hearings. Outing Valerie Plame, did the president know it was being done? Absolutely not. The vice president? No comment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, FMR. WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: It was wrong to reveal her identity, because it compromised the effectiveness of a covert official for political reasons.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: And the ranking Republican Lamar Smith says -

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LAMAR SMITH, ® TEXAS: It‘s hard to take Mr. McClellan or this hearing too seriously. Scott McClellan alone will have to wrestle with whether it was worth selling out the president and his friends for a few pieces of silver.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Strong words, Mr. Smith, unless it‘s coming from a man like you who sold out his country.

Worst Persons: Rupert Murdoch‘s latest gaffe, the actual number in question is 2,202,000, the number he reports is 300,000. Close.

And, he‘s an activist. He doesn‘t just lay one on TV.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN CUSACK, ACTOR: You think you can tell President Bush apart from John McCain, really?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: John Cusack joins us tonight.

All of that and more: Now on COUNTDOWN.

(on camera): Good evening. This is Friday, June 20th, 137 days until the 2008 presidential election.

Even though it‘s fully deserving the title of “Obama maniacs” did not dare to dream, even though as faithful among the “McCaininites,” did not have such nightmares. A new addition of the “Newsweek” Poll in which the men were tied a month ago, anything but at the hour, this summer formally begins.

Our fifth story on the COUNTDOWN: Obama by 15, but the caveat that Michael Dukakis had a similar lead at this point in his race 20 years ago. The poll shows Obama bounding away from McCain by a margin of 51 to 36. McCain getting barely more than one out of three registered voters, and Clinton voters, specifically women, the majority of electorate is now backing Obama over McCain by even bigger margin, 54 to 33, that is a 21-point lead.

That 54 percent, of course, now includes Senator Clinton herself. She will make her first public appearance, we learned today, with Obama next Friday. Logistical details still to come. This, following a private joint meeting next Thursday with 100 of her top fundraisers to make them his top fundraisers.

Last night, Senator Clinton held a private conference call with other big fundraisers, telling them to start giving to Obama and asking them to help her with her own campaign debt.

(INAUDIBLE) specifically, Obama‘s money is still an issue of contention for the new frontrunner, he‘s decision to opt out a public financing, still generating questions, at least, among reporters who asked him today to explain what was so bad about the existing system that he became the first major party candidate in decades not to opt into it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Well, what we got of the system, as I said yesterday, that where we see 527s, the RNC, or the DNC, outside groups, raising vast amount of money, much of it undisclosed, from special interests, from PACs, from lobbyists, and that amount of money last election cycle dwarfed some of the money that were spent within the system.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: A report at Politico.com today says there are literally no serious anti-Obama 527s yet—the independent groups with no caps on donations, not now in existence, none in the pipeline. Politico reporting that Karl Rove approached wealthy GOP veterans of past smear campaigns, with none so far opening their wallets, even T. Boone Pickens, the patron of the swiftboats, like others, either sitting out 2008, or focusing on other issues.

Obama, however, said the lack of 527s now does not guarantee a lack of them tomorrow.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: You and I both know that 527s pop up pretty quickly and have enormous influence and we‘ve already seen them—there was an ad, one in South Dakota by Floyd Brown, I think, were it took a speech that I‘d made extolling faith and made it seem as if I have said that America was a Muslim nation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: We should note also that Politico reported—

Republicans believe there will be third-party groups attacking Obama. McCain, of course, while criticizing such efforts, has also said he will not play referee on the ads. He also failed to get his own party in North Carolina to stop running anti-Obama ads there in the primaries.

On the left, Moveon.org today shut down it‘s 527, saying it is honoring Obama‘s request, saying it believes it can do better relying on its political action group which is limited, like 527s, unlike 527s, rather, to donations of $5,000 or less.

Let‘s turn now to MSNBC political analyst, Jonathan Alter, also, of course, senior editor at “Newsweek” magazine.

Thanks for coming in, Jon.

JONATHAN ALTER, MNSBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Hi, Keith.

OLBERMANN: Your magazine‘s poll numbers, they‘re a better sign for Obama than they were for Dukakis for what reason?

ALTER: Well, you can argue that it‘s baked in the cake more this time. But we do have to stipulate a few things. First of all, this is only one poll, even though it is a “Newsweek” Poll. I‘d like to see some others before I‘m willing to say that this is a super ball bounce. You know, a huge, huge bounce the way it looks tonight. But the indications are pretty strong right now that the Democratic Party is coming together behind Obama and independents are moving in his direction.

A lot can happen. You can have another terrorist attack, return to a fear campaign that really connected, if that were to happen, Reverend Wrights‘ memoirs might be coming out between now and the election.

So, you know, I‘ve covered enough of these to know that it‘s very premature to declare this over, but it is much different than Mike Dukakis‘ race. First of all, Dukakis wasn‘t anywhere close to the candidate that Obama is. Second of all, he‘s running against incumbent Vice President George H.W. Bush, who was running for a third Reagan term at a time when the incumbent was very popular. The incumbent right now to whom John McCain is lashed is extraordinarily unpopular.

OLBERMANN: There‘s also a danger of looking back as to what this indicates in the past, in the recent past, but a lot of inferring is being done here that this had something to do with, or at least backs up those who say—well, this toughened - the primary season did, in fact, toughen Obama up and this is the result of it, when that finally was sealed over when the waters covered the p-quad (ph), suddenly, it‘s a 15-point lead. Anything to that?

ALTER: I think there is something to that and you can make the argument, I think Obama himself understood this, and actually mentioned it to me during the South Carolina primary, that he thought that the tough race with Hillary Clinton could help him long term, puts a little more mileage on him, shows that he can take a punch, and meanwhile, his organization was growing all of these different primary states. So they got a kind of a dress rehearsal for November by going through these bruising primaries.

Notice that one state that he‘s not doing so well in this is Michigan. He didn‘t campaign there during the primaries. So, I think that we all will look back on—if he goes on to win, that the primary season as having actually helped him.

OLBERMANN: This meeting of the minds next Friday, a week from now, with Clinton and Obama in some kind of joint appearance, Lord knows where the news was so important that the details seem to be irrelevant until we come upon the point. Is it political reconciliation or is this actually more debt reconciliation?

ALTER: Well, you know, I think it‘s some of both. You know, he will go to his fundraisers and ask them to help her erase her debt. She is getting on board as an enthusiastic member of the Obama team which she did in her concession speech.

So, they have mutual interests here but the bigger Obama‘s lead is in the polls, particularly among women, the less likely it is that Hillary Clinton herself will go on the ticket. So, I think at this point, we should be starting to talk about the chance of her going on the ticket is something of a long shot.

OLBERMANN: Which, it almost lends a different air to her support. Yes, there are financial considerations in both directions because her supporters, her financial supporters can now work for him in ways that they could not even have work for her anymore, especially the big donors, and his supporters can help her out and help her campaign out of that campaign debt, those are givens.

But having said that, there are other ways out for her. She does not necessarily have to be doing even what she‘s doing now and we‘re all forget that so much has happened. It‘s two weeks tomorrow since she dropped out, it‘s not like it was six weeks ago.

ALTER: Yes, you know, the thing that so peculiar about the campaign finance laws is that she can‘t have her own people erase her debt. He has to have his people do it. And he needs her people to give what‘s expected to be as much as $30 million for his general election campaign. So that‘s the twisted nature of our system, which he, today, was just objecting to and thinking that we need to redo when he becomes president.

OLBERMANN: Well, sincerity and financial self-interest are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They can both run on parallel tracks.

ALTER: That‘s right.

OLBERMANN: Jonathan Alter, political analyst for MSNBC, senior editor at “Newsweek” magazine, as always, thanks for coming in. Have a good weekend.

ALTER: Thanks, Keith. You, too.

OLBERMANN: Today‘s news about the disarmed 527s on the right, and the unilateral disarmament of one of the left‘s most powerful 527s, Moveon.org, comes at the same point of the campaign where a last time out the swiftboaters and other mudslingers were already up and running. It leaves a vacuum of uncertainty about if and when, and from whom the mud comes this time.

Let‘s turn to Democratic strategist, Chris Kofinis, whose job was to anticipate the mud, while communications director for the campaign of John Edwards.

Great thanks for your time tonight, sir.

CHRIS KOFINIS, FMR. EDWARDS CAMPAIGN SPOKESMAN: Thanks, Keith.

OLBERMANN: The political assessment here, are the mudslingers on the disabled list this season?

KOFINIS: More like playing possum. I mean, let‘s be realistic. They are going to unleash, you know, their 527 groups. It‘s a question of if, not when.

If you read the Politico story, you know, it‘s maybe we will, might do it, could do it. I can answer the question. They will do it. My guess is you‘re going to see it probably closer to the convention as well as after.

The real interesting question for me is why even do they need 527s? I mean, people forget that John McCain was the first online grassroots candidate. I mean, he raised $1 million back in 2000, which was an unprecedented number.

What‘s happened? And what‘s happened if you look at it is his message. He has none. He‘s changed who he is as candidate. He‘s flip-flopped on major issues. Neither his base nor his supporters know exactly who he is. And so, I mean, that‘s, I think, become a real problem for him in terms of being able to raise money online.

And so, when you kind of step back, you kind of look at it, the reality is, that John McCain of 2000 would neither donate nor support the John McCain of 2008. That‘s his problem.

OLBERMANN: But let‘s turn that on its head here, Chris, with Obama‘s statement about 527s and Moveon.org dropping its, could that be as much about the fact that he has this money spigot available to him? The number came in from May, $22 million, it‘s $43 million on hand for the general election campaign for Obama. Is it not just the question of whether or not 527s are right but whether or not they are necessary for the left side of this equation?

KOFINIS: Listen, you know, in the past, the reason why the 527s and these independent groups were playing such an active role was because, one, the Republicans tended to just crush us in terms of fundraising. That started changing in 2004 when grassroots fundraising, online fundraising just exploded. You saw that with Howard Dean, and now, you‘re seeing that with Barack Obama at another level. It‘s unprecedented.

I mean, I think, the reality is the reason why Senator Obama and his campaign just want to basically shun the 527s is they want to be able to control their campaign and the message and it actually is the right thing to do. You want to be able to fund your campaign through small dollar donations. Ninety percent of his donors give $100 or less. That is a public financed campaign by definition.

The real problem here is John McCain‘s inability to tap the millions of supporters out there that he clearly in theory has. I mean, if you have 1 million supporters and in theory he does, you‘ve got $100 from them, you $100 million, you have unlimited resources. What does this say about the McCain campaign that they can‘t tap that? That‘s a real failure.

OLBERMANN: So, in a weird way, these “Newsweek” numbers with a 15-point slippage, he goes with a tie with Obama in May to 15 points behind as of tonight in this “Newsweek” Poll. Is that good news for fundraising for McCann or do people bail out at 15 points, or just, other people say, “Oh, my God, we‘re really in huge trouble, we better get in”?

KOFINIS: You know, I don‘t know. It‘s a good question. I mean, the problem is, if you read that, a Politico story and you read between the lines, at least, one read, I don‘t buy it, but, you know, arguably you can look at it this way. I mean, the Republicans are almost looking at John McCain as a bad investment for 2008, like why waste our money.

I mean, I‘m not going to bet on that. And I think any Democrat that‘s going to sit there and pretend that the 527s are not going to come, the Republicans aren‘t going to mobilize to attack Senator Obama and the campaign like crazy, it‘s going to happen. I think, the problem right now is John McCain is a flawed candidate with a flawed message and that is impossible at a year when people have seen the last eight years and the damage the Bush administration has done.

So, for McCain to go out there and consistently embrace it and change positions that actually made him a unique candidate in 2000, to become a Bush acolyte just doesn‘t make any sense. That‘s what‘s hurting him.

OLBERMANN: Chris Kofinis, Democratic strategist, former spokesman for the Edwards campaign. As always, sir, our great thanks.

KOFINIS: Thanks, Keith.

OLBERMANN: The Obama test in the Senate. Next, the House approves the FISA fold-up. Obama promises to fight telecom immunity but he may vote yes any way next week.

John McClellan testifies, John Cusack joins us, and Murdoch‘s minions of darkness smear Tim Russert‘s memory again.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OLBERMANN: By 164 votes, many of them are shifting suddenly just a way a pack of flies will mindlessly (ph) all shift two feet to the left for no apparent reason in summer, the House gave the president what he wanted on FISA.

Later in Worst: John Bolton loses track who was president on 9/11, Chris Wallace loses track of who was anchoring on FOX on primary nights, and the “New York Post” loses track of, well, everything.

Not to oversell it, but also just in tonight, we may have the greatest piece of videotape of George Bush in action ever, seriously. Press, play, and record now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OLBERMANN: It is the last thing a man says before he becomes president, a catechism between him and the chief justice which concludes with him swearing he, quote, “will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God.”

Nothing in there about ignoring the Constitution or gutting it, yet in our fourth story tonight: There is Mr. Bush doing it again and being aided and abetted by Democrats who outnumber his people on Capitol Hill. The bill, a bipartisan compromise on FISA was rubber-stamped this morning, 293 to 129, this, after impassioned debate even between members of the same party.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH, (D) OHIO: Let‘s stand up for the Fourth Amendment. Let‘s remember when this country was founded, Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who give up their essential liberties to achieve a measure of security deserve neither.”

REP. NANCY PELOSI, (D) CALIFORNIA: We have to fight the war on terrorism, the fight against terrorism, wherever it may exist. Good intelligence is necessary for us to know the plan of the terrorist and to defeat those plans. So we can‘t go without a bill. That‘s just simply not an option.

But to have a bill, we must have a bill that does not violate the Constitution of the United States. And this bill does not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: The bill stands not only to corrupt the Constitution but will immunize telecom communities that spied on American citizens at the behest of President and keep them from any legal liability. As the Senate prepares to take this up, FISA 2008 is already a campaign issue. Senator Obama offered qualified support, warning that as president, he would monitor the program closely, which is nice, but not really close enough. John McCain, after blaming the ACLU and trial lawyers for delaying the passage of this bill, said he will support the measure.

John Dean is White House counsel under Richard Nixon, author of “Broken Government,” joins us tonight from Los Angeles for a comment on this.

John, good evening.

JOHN DEAN, FMR. NIXON WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Good evening, Keith.

OLBERMANN: What happened here, do you suppose? Is this—is this some sort of prophyllactic gesture for the election on behalf of Democrats or how did this transpire?

DEAN: Well, I think, you‘ve got to give one for the terrorists on our Fourth Amendment. They really did some damage today in this so-called compromise, contrary to what the speaker said that really does hurt the Constitution. So, it‘s very troubling and it‘s not a good day for civil liberties, particularly.

OLBERMANN: We have seen before, learned way after the fact that before several critical bills like this and votes, that the Democrats were shown harrowing secrets from the supposed terror threats—terror threats that later turned out to be exaggerated, even fabricated. I don‘t have any evidence whatsoever that this happened this time or suggesting that. But given the suddenness of the Democrats fold, does it not feel like this has happened again this time?

DEAN: Well, it wouldn‘t surprise me if it had happened. You know, they have used fear very effectively. This is somewhat sudden in finally reaching a conclusion on what to do with a very troublesome problem that they have been resisting on.

It would not surprise me also if it really is what I‘ve been told, is that the conservative elements of the Democratic Party lean on the leadership and said, “Listen, we‘ve got some really tough opponents from Republicans in closed districts. We need this. We don‘t want to have this hanging over our head. Let‘s get it solved now before it‘s too late.”

OLBERMANN: Senator Obama‘s position on this confuses me. He loathes the telecom immunity, he says that he would fight it immediately and he would monitor it carefully as president. The vote though is next week. He better do that part of the fight quick.

If this gets in through the Senate, there‘s no way to get it out again, is there? I mean, the history of this nation in terms of lost civil liberties is pretty bad about restoring them.

DEAN: Well, I spent a lot of time reading that bill today, and it‘s a very poorly-drafted bill. One of the things that is not clear is whether it‘s not possible later to go after the telecoms for criminal liability. And that something that Obama has said during this campaign he would do, unlike prior presidents who come in and really give their predecessor a pass, he said, “I won‘t do that.” And that might be why he‘s just sitting back saying, “Well, I‘m going to let this go through. But that doesn‘t mean I‘m going to give the telecoms a pass.” I would love it if he gets on the Senate floor and says, “I‘m keeping that option opened.”

OLBERMANN: In other words, let the private suits drop and get somebody in there who‘ll actually use the laws that still exist to prosecute and make the actual statement and maybe throw a few people in jail.

DEAN: Exactly. And it looks to me, as I read this bill and talk to a number of people in Washington familiar with the bill, some who are involved in the negotiations, and they say, “You know - we just didn‘t think about this issue.” So, as it goes to the Senate, maybe Obama‘s got a shot to take, you know, a future look at this thing and not let them have the pass that they think they‘re getting.

OLBERMANN: That would be a nice symmetry to that—that everybody had been so lulled into a sense of complacency because of the Bush success on this that they‘ve left out anything that protected anybody legally, if you had a president who actually believed in the Constitution. That would be a nice touch. To that point, Jonathan Turley suggested last night though, that this is as much about immunizing Congress for its complicity with the president as it is about anything else to use the play on (ph) acronyms that I used last night, this is not FISA, it‘s CYA.

DEAN: I caught your acronym and I listened to Jonathan last night. And while I—you know, it wouldn‘t be the first time or the last time that there‘s been a CY action in Washington. That isn‘t what I‘ve heard. And so I‘m not sure, but it‘s one of the things I know we‘ll never learn the answer to, for this reason—those people were all briefed on a classified basis, so they really can‘t explain it.

OLBERMANN: How convenient that is.

John Dean, author of “Broken Government,” giving us a little hope in here that perhaps a President Obama or some future Democrat might be able to still pursue this within the courts. Thank you, John. Have a good weekend.

DEAN: Thanks, Keith.

OLBERMANN: There is ice on Mars. Unfortunately, there doesn‘t appear to be any whiskey.

And, poor Chris Wallace. We‘re going to have to break the bad news to him. Apparently, they have told him some people don‘t get to do election night over there, even though they do get to do election over there.

Ahead on COUNTDOWN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OLBERMANN: Best Persons in a moment and the greatest piece of non-speaking George Bush videotape ever.

First, on this day, 20 years ago, a brand new camera operator on the game show, “The Price is Right,” put a little too much English on one of his moves, swinging the camera abruptly and forcibly enough to send model, Janice Pennington, flying 10 feet off the stage into the audience and knocking her out cold. She was OK but thus was born the game “Plinko” (ph). It sounds she (ph).

Let‘s play Oddball.

To COUNTDOWN to Mars bureau where scientists working on NASA‘s Phoenix Mars Lander think they have found evidence of ice on Mars. This is a ditch dug by the lander‘s robotic arm. In a before (ph) picture taken on Sunday, there are diced-size formations in the lower left corner of the ditch.

NASA figured it was ice but they were not sold until they saw this picture taken Thursday, four days later, the formations have disappeared, leaving little doubt the formations were made of frozen water vaporized when exposed to the Martian atmosphere. Of course, those scientists are unsure of the ice theory, we‘re finally convinced when the lander sent this picture back to Houston.

And now here it is, Raleigh, North Carolina. A 26 percent approval rating feels like. Watch the two guys behind the fence waiting for Marine One to land. As the president disembarks, he waves hello to them and nothing. So he tries a bigger wave. Yoohoo, hey. Nothing. Eventually he gives us and saunters out of screen. Next time, give him a couple no-bid contracts. We‘ll show that to you again later in the hour.

The Scott McClellan hearing—it is not much but it‘s on the record. Sometimes the only way to start is to say the truth out loud. We‘ll ask John Cusack about that after his role in a new ad hammering home the links between John McCain and George Bush.

These stories, the “Countdown‘s” three best persons of the world. Number three, best dumb sports fans. Dutch soccer supporters, visiting Bern in Switzerland to watch their team play. The railway worker was dumbfounded when he realized the large group of Dutch fans was following him on to the tracks like lemmings as he went to make a repair. He was wearing an orange safety vest. Their team‘s official color is orange. So they followed him. Swiss rail authorities are temporarily switching to yellow safety vests until the tournament is over.

Number two, best smack down. Bernard Goldberg on FOX Noise, as Bill O. went all projection over a European mayonnaise ad in which the mayo is so authentic it temporarily turns a housewife into a New York City deli counter man. The husband then kisses him briefly.

It was obviously a gay thing, Bill O. bellowed. I don‘t know what the message is besides gay people like mayonnaise. Goldberg‘s response, Bill, if you think a major corporation like Heinz is trying to sell a product like mayonnaise by appealing to gay people—and I say this in the best possible sense—you‘re nuts. This is not a gay issue. It‘s a mayonnaise issue.

Number one best dumb criminal. The Botox bandit of Port St. Lucie, Florida, has been busted. A woman was going into the offices of cosmetic surgeons, getting injections and then making excuses about having to go out to her card for her credit card and never coming back and never paying. 23-yeawr-old Kelly Thomas, recognized because she had before and after pictures at one of the clinics. Apparently, it never dawned on her that somebody might release the photos. Ms. Thomas, I know you‘re in jail and I know the free Botox treatments are a thing of the past, but still, why the long face?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OLBERMANN: “Only those who know the underlying truth can bring this to an ends. Sadly, they remain silent,” the words of former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, this time under oath, in our third story on “Countdown,” describing the Bush administration‘s overstated and over-packaged selling of prewar intelligence and facing critics like Ranking Republican Lamar Smith, who snidely welcomed McClellan to the Judiciary Committee of the book of the month club. Appearing voluntarily before the House Judiciary Committee at its request, Mr. McClellan said he did not think President Bush knew about the leak of CIA officer Valarie Plame‘s identity. As for the vice president, quote, “I do not know. There‘s a lot of suspicion there.”

Pay attention to how McClellan‘s own unwitting lie in the matter came about, September 29th, 2003, right after the leak investigation was launched.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: That Saturday morning I received a call from the White House chief of staff, Andy Card, and he said that the president and vice president had spoken that morning and they wanted me to provide the same assurances for Scooter Libby that I had for Karl Rove. I was reluctant to do it but I headed into the White House that Saturday morning. I talked with Andy Card. I said I would provide the same assurances for Scooter Libby given that he would give me the same assurance that Karl Rove had. I got on the phone with Scooter Libby and asked him point blank, were you involved in this in any way, and he assured me in unequivocal terms that he was not, meaning the leaking of Valarie Plame‘s identity to any reporters.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Also notable that the leak of Valerie Plame‘s name and the distorted prewar intel of which it was a part may never fully be addressed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCLELLAN: I think that the problem here is that this White House promised or assured the American people that at some point when this was behind us, they would talk publicly about it. And they have refused to. and that‘s why I think, more than any other reason, we are here today and this suspicion still remains.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: So when Congressman Smith says, quote, “Scott McClellan alone will have to wrestle with whether it was worth selling out the president and his friends for a piece of silver,” he should consider exactly what he himself was selling and the consequences far more grave than a few pieces of silver.

Dana Milbank, the national political reporter of “Washington Post,” MSNBC political analyst, attended today‘s hearings.

Dana, good evening.

DANA MILBANK, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST & NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER,

“WASHINGTON POST”: Good evening, Keith.

OLBERMANN: The reception for Mr. McClellan before judiciary today sounds like it was varying wildly between the book critics and the Democrats and one of the Democrats, at least one of them, invoked impeachment?

MILBANK: Actually, three of them invoked impeachment. One of them was Robert Wexler, who has been a key surrogate for Barack Obama. Basically, all of that is is invoking impeachment. The Democratic leaders, as you know, have taken it off the table. Really, all they can do in this sort of a forum is make some noise. It really actually did become sort of a book club gathering of where he was getting raves from the Democrats and rather harsh reviews from the other side.

OLBERMANN: Those who raved on his behalf, was there any sense there today that this great body of discontent about pre-war intel, about selling the war, about the lies, the attacking of the critics of the war, that all of this is going to be in some mysterious way resolved after Mr. Bush leaves office or is it going to sit there like an historical exhibit of the Smithsonian?

MILBANK: Yes, it will be an exhibit in the Smithsonian and Joe Wilson will donate his body to the exhibit. Usually this sort of thing would come out. The National Archives would get the note and they‘d eventually be released for the benefit of historians. But as we know, a lot of the crucial e-mails and things will have been deleted by that time any way. There‘s not a lot of hope here, either, that this committee will get anywhere, since it‘s an actual prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, could not get any further than this. Who knows in a quarter century we may be able to write a footnote in history.

OLBERMANN: About Fitzgerald, the chairman of the Judiciary, John Conyers said that the incidents in McClellan‘s book—let me quote him exactly—“may constitute obstruction of justice beyond what Scooter Libby was convicted for.”

The book is essentially—the key elements of the book, they‘re now on the congressional record. Does it move the Judiciary Committee‘s investigation forward? What is the nature of that investigation or are they just, as we said before, the only stage right here is telling the truth on the record allowed and hoping something good will happen of it some day?

MILBANK: Yeah. Well, you see, Keith, there‘s no accident that the contempt of Congress is a misdemeanor. Carl and Scooter and the whole gang know that they can stone wall and avoid this committee. All they can do is scream and yell about it. and there‘s not a whole lot of time that they have that they have to worry about. It will be very easy for them to runoff the clock.

Clearly, as you saw from Lamar Smith and his book of the month club remark that they are not going to get a lot of support there. Yeah, they can call a few more hearings. Hard to see, as Scott McClellan himself said today, how they get much beyond this without other people coming to talk.

OLBERMANN: Even though this is a Rosetta Stone—I‘ve used that term for like the 15th time about trying to understand the last few years. His point, he may be the last one to speak. Is there any possibility, that anyone is going to follow down this path even if it is later on if Karl Rove needs 5 million bucks?

MILBANK: No, I don‘t think. Plenty of people are talking about Tony Fratto, who said today that Scott McClellan has said everything that he doesn‘t know, so why not say some more. No, I think—I saw the puffy bags under Scott‘s eyes there. He‘s been under a great deal of strain because so many of his old friends have been so loyal to the president and so tough on him. I see no cracks occurring where others are going to follow him.

OLBERMANN: The cracks may be going to occur if the Republicans don‘t get the White House bank and the rest of these people don‘t have a source of income after January of next year. We‘ll see.

Dana Milbank of the “Washington Post” and MSNBC, permitting me to talk about that while he sits there and nods knowingly.

Thank you, Dana. Have a good weekend.

MILBANKS: Thanks, Keith.

OLBERMANN: Polls show John McCain‘s key chance at winning is to separate himself from President Bush. John Cusack has other ideas. He will join us.

And anybody out there remember who was president on 9/11? Because former unconfirmed U.N. Ambassador John Bolton can‘t seem to remember. Worst Persons next on “Countdown.”

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OLBERMANN: John Cusack on his MoveOn.org ad, his film “War, Inc.” a satire which looks surprisingly like a documentary about the Bush administration in Iraq. The first, the worst, the “New York Post” actually does not know, the rest of us know, they fabricate their own gossip updates. The latest insertion of foot into mouth from the unfortunate Paula Froelich, next on “Countdown.”

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OLBERMANN: Actors speaking out. That‘s one thing. An actor actually appearing in a political commercial, that‘s a new level. John Cusack joins us.

But first, “Countdown‘s” number two story, tonight‘s Worst Persons in the World.

The bronze, former unconfirmed U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, telling John Gibson, apparently on the streets since John doesn‘t have a TV show anymore, that the election of Barack Obama, quote, “Will simply be a replay of the Clinton administration. It will simply have more embassy bombings, more bombings of our warships like the Cole, more World Trade Center attacks. That will be the best outcome from that perspective.”

Mr. Unconfirmed Ambassador, I don‘t know how to break this to you, but the World Trade Center attacks occurred on September 2001, your watch, Mr. Bush‘s administration, not Mr. Clinton‘s. This crew will blame George Bush. Sorry.

Our Runner up, Chris Wallace, of Fixed News. speaking at Thousand Oaks, California, according to coverage in the local paper there, “The Acorn,” he, quote, “distanced himself from right wing Fox shows hosted by Bill O‘Reilly and Sean Sanity by calling them opinion shows and said that, unlike MSNBC‘s fiery liberal, Keith Olbermann, O‘Reilly and Hannity are never permitted to anchor newscasts.”

Chris, you‘re 60. Stop being naive. Everything on FOX is an opinion show and, of course, FOX permits them to anchor newscasts. They let O‘Reilly anchor on primary nights. They let Hannity & Colmes anchor on primary nights. They let you anchor on primary nights.

Paula Froelich, of the gossip section of Rupert Murdoch‘s “New York Post,” who‘s writers are divided into those who have been found taking bribes and those that have not yet been found taking bribes. As we told you last night, she made up a story about Chris Matthews and me seeking to succeed our friend, the late Tim Russert. Even as a work of fiction, it was pretty dam weak. They had Chris lobbying for the job at the reception after Tim‘s memorial service, which not only isn‘t true, but which only somebody working for Rupert Murdoch would be classless and self destructive enough to do.

Her hallucination had me threatening to quit if I didn‘t get the job, which not only isn‘t true but, as I said last night, does not account for the fact that I am not qualified for Tim Russert‘s job.

Mr. Froelich, however, knowingly and maliciously printed the falsehoods and has now had Bill Hoffman make something else up. He‘s another staffer at page 6, who‘s writers are divided into those who have been found taking bribes and those that have not yet been found taking bribes. Mr. Hoffman was told to make something up for tomorrow‘s paper about my supposed recent diagnosis of Witmack Echbaum‘s Syndrome (ph), a neurological condition in which sleep is sometimes interrupted by odd nerve sensations in the limbs. He‘s been told to talk about the sexual side effects of a new drug prescribed for the disease and to make up something about whether or not the drug is affecting me, which gives him a hobby. But unfortunately, with dead on inaccuracy—has nothing to do with me, since my diagnosis was not recent. It was in the mid-1990s. And I‘ve never taken the drug he‘s going to be making stuff up about tomorrow.

Returning to Ms. Froelich meantime, she told an online gossip site, quote, “Perhaps, Keith, who is as infantile as he is narcissistic, should preach to his viewers about things that actually matter to him rather than himself. But then again, there are only 300,000 of them.”

Actually, we had 2,202,000 viewers last night and every time you‘ve written about me, that number has gone up. So congratulations to Paula and the “Post” for getting yet one more thing wrong by a factor of 1,900,000.

And congratulations on the “Post‘s” daily circulation of nearly 725,000. Well, there‘s been a toilet paper shortage lately.

Paula Froelich, of the “New York Post,” nearly one day without a factual accident, today‘s Worst Person in the World.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OLBERMANN: He‘s acted in at least 57 films, produced eight of them and produced three, but on our number one story on the “Countdown,” John Cusack now has a new role—political polemicist. He joins us presently.

First, his debut commercial for MoveOn.org.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN CUSACK, ACTOR & FILM PRODUCER: Do you think you can tell him apart? Pop quiz. Who supports the bipartisan bill of rights to support them when they return home? Who tried to privatize our Social Security and opposed health care for uninsured children last year? And the answer is both. Go to MoveOn.org and take the Bush-McCain challenge. Bet you can‘t tell them apart.

ANNOUNCER: MoveOn.Org Political Action is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: That ad, released just months after the premier of Cusack‘s new film, “War, Inc.” set in the fictional Terakistan (ph), where tanks carry advertising banners, journalists are confined to the Emerald City, the movie satires the enormous influence that companies like Halliburton and Blackwater have in Iraq. Indeed, the fictional corporation that runs Terakistan (ph) is itself run by a former vice president of the United States, who, in publishing or push, rather, for his company‘s latest big sale in that war-torn country, is a familiar rational, “It‘s our big launch, bringing democracy to this part of the world. Plus, now that we‘ve bombed the blank out of them, well, there‘s a lot of building to do.”

As promised, we‘re joined by John Cusack who is in London.

Thanks for you time tonight, John.

CUSACK: Thanks for having me. I‘m a big fan of the show.

OLBERMANN: Thank you for your time this evening.

We‘ll get to the film in a moment but, first, this ad. Acting is one thing producing is one thing. Interview‘s one thing. There are protests, but protests are still art. Why go to a situation where, you know, the MoveOn ad is literally and utterly you out there?

CUSACK: Well, you know, I‘ve been sort of politically active in the same way I think for a long time. And I think maybe in 2008, if you‘re not going to be an activist now, I don‘t know when you ever are going to be. And I think we‘re in a place now where—if torture if a for-profit business, if the Bush administration and the Republican ideology that it represents is going to outsource interrogation and the very core functions of state and military, and if we‘re so far down the rabbit hole that that‘s true, I think your conscience dictates that you speak out. So in this case, I agreed with MoveOn and everything I said in the ad is true. So I‘m happy to do it.

OLBERMANN: Well said. I need to welcome you to this vast society of fear mongering smear merchants or smear mongering fear merchants, and whatever we‘re called. Bill O‘Reilly has attacked you, said this is propaganda. Just swing away. What‘s your reaction?

CUSACK: Well, you know, it‘s—as I said, if you‘re not going to speak out now—I think maybe when folks like that attack you it means that you‘re probably somewhere close to the truth. And as I said before, when asked about that, you beat his head in every night. So I think it would be just piling on, to be honest.

I wouldn‘t know where—where would one begin?

OLBERMANN: Don‘t blame his condition on my beating his head in. He came to us this way.

When celebrities and performers get involved in politics, obviously there can be an impact. You know, the obvious example, Oprah Winfrey with Barack Obama. Is there any concern that they sometimes blow back, that it could be hurtful to a candidate or to a cause?

CUSACK: Yeah. I think when you say something is as important as what you say in some ways. And I certainly wouldn‘t want a lecture the electorate or American people about anything.

But on the same token, I have a right to speak out and speak my mind and democracy requires participation. And some things are so egregious and I think that this administration, as you‘ve chronicled it for seven years, as been so criminal and lawless that I think morality compels you to speak. So I think what you say is important, but when you say it is also important. And I felt now is the time to say it.

OLBERMANN: Reality versus fiction. In the film you play an assassin who has gone to Terakistan (ph) to protect the corporation‘s oil interest by killing a Middle Eastern oil executive who wants to build his own pipeline. Given that, it‘s kind of—it seems far fetched. and then comes the news this week that four U.S. oil companies are now on the verge of getting back into Iraq to manage the Iraqi oil 36 years after Saddam Hussein nationalized their wells. There‘s such a blur here. Anytime somebody gets a good imaginative idea on how to satirize this war, it seems like the Bush administration beats you to it.

CUSACK: Yeah. It‘s very true, you know. In a way I think what satire and absurdity does is take the current trends to their logical conclusions. Even if you go out there on the limb and get way out there and stay out there, it‘s hard to stay ahead of this crew.

This is such a corrupt ideology. And it‘s been such a disaster and I really think that this idea that government really—the job of government is to preside over a corporate feeding frenzy and give total liberations for corporations. And that‘s the core of Heritage Foundation and Cato and the Project for the New American Century. Many of the signatories on that are now working for John McCain. So it‘s the same—it‘s the same crew. They go in this revolving door between corporations and the government and, you know, it‘s a pretty dark reality. So I agree.

OLBERMANN: Are you hopeful—and I say this as a precursor to showing this tape again, which you‘ll see on a five-second delay from Raleigh, North Carolina this afternoon. First off, we have the “Newsweek” poll that shows Obama is up 15 points after one month of a general campaign.

Let‘s play this tape, boys. This is President Bush‘s arrival in Raleigh, North Carolina. And he waves to the two guys who are waiting to see him and they don‘t even move. There‘s no reaction whatsoever.

When you see something like this, are you encouraged, are you hopeful about the state of the United States?

CUSACK: You know, I‘m—I am hopeful about it. And I—that‘s pretty funny. Yep, that‘s our president.

I am hopeful about it, but I do think that, you know, we have to call on all well-meaning Libertarians, Republicans and Democrats to sort of expose and shame the last seven years. And I do think if the Democrats say impeachment is off the table, I think that‘s very troubling. So I do—I think that if that sends out a signal that the rule of law doesn‘t mean anything if we‘re within striking distance of the White House.

And I think you have to also take a hard look at Democrats and not only the people who have stood by and enabled George Bush, but also the Democrats who would allow this to continue and allow these crimes to stand. I think that‘s deeply, deeply troubling as well.

But to give you a more coherent answer, I do—I am still optimistic. And I do think Obama‘s going to win. And I think the country‘s going to change, which I‘m grateful, grateful for.

OLBERMANN: John Cusack, actor and activist. We are grateful for you staying up late with us here in London. Good luck and safe travels.

CUSACK: Yeah, I‘m always happy to have an excuse to be incoherent so it‘s late at night, but...

OLBERMANN: Take care.

CUSACK: Thanks, Keith.

OLBERMANN: That‘s “Countdown” for this, the 1,878th day since the declaration of mission accomplished in Iraq. I‘m Keith Olbermann. Good night and good luck.

Transcript of 'Countdown with Keith Olberman' for April 3, 2008

Transcript:


KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST (voice over): Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow?

Obama 49, Clinton 46: The poll numbers. Obama 40, Clinton 20: The money numbers. How many they raised in millions in March?


Making a speech on the economy, McCain has no plan and Obama is timid, ironic.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am continuing to sound the alarm. I feel like, you know, Paulette Revere - the recession is coming, the recession is coming.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: And the realists may be on their heels.

Clinton superdelegate Jack Murtha: “She has to win Pennsylvania. She has to be ahead in the popular vote to have any chance at all of getting this nomination.”

Clinton superdelegate John Corzine: “I reserve the right to switch to Obama if she doesn‘t have the popular vote.”

“He can‘t win. He can‘t win.” Did Senator Clinton say that to Governor Richardson? Or did Governor Richardson say that to Senator Clinton, changing his mind after the race speech?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: I don‘t talk about private conversations but I have consistently made the case that I can win, because I believe I can win.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: John McCain believes he can win on a war platform. His bio tour is a trip down memory lane of violence. So, why won‘t he endorse the new G.I. Bill?

Torture: The paper trail goes straight to the top. The new John Yoo memo found. Laws against assault, maiming, torture, meant nothing if the president said they meant nothing.

Political suicide: Congressman Darrell Issa of California‘s says, 9/11 was just an aircraft. No dirty bomb, no chemical munitions, so the federal government should not pay for any treatment of anybody injured or killed at the World Trade Center. Issa doesn‘t want to have to spend federal money, quote, “every single time a similar situation happens.”

And: COUNTDOWN anniversary week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Keith Olbermann, thanks very much for being on the show.

OLBERMANN: Thank you for being having me.

Right in the middle of the interview outside of Earlman (ph), Wisconsin, oh, you better take care of her. It never stops.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: All that and more: Now on COUNTDOWN.

That‘s a nice color on you.

(on camera): Good evening, this is Thursday, April 3rd, 215 days until the 2008 presidential election.

When they came forward publicly and said we support her. We will cast our votes for her as Democratic Party superdelegates, Senator Hillary Clinton vocally let their views be known, explain why their views should hold sway.

But in our fifth story tonight: New comments from these two superdelegates most likely not welcome by the Clinton campaign, not to be found in the headlines of their media releases. The gist: We are behind you all the way. This offer may be withdrawn at any time.

New Jersey Governor John Corzine saying he thinks Senator Clinton will win the popular vote in the primaries counting Florida and Michigan. But then, if she does not, he reserves the right to switch his vote from Clinton to Obama.

Pennsylvania Congressman Jack Murtha is going a step further. Her most recent name endorsement saying that, in that event, the event that she is trailing Obama in total primary and caucus votes, Clinton cannot be the nominee.

Another superdelegate today, former President Jimmy Carter indicating, hinting who will his vote, saying, quote, “My children and their spouses are pro-Obama. My grandchildren are also pro-Obama. As a superdelegate I will not disclose who I am rooting for but I leave you to make that guess.” Um, Gary Hart.

Superdelegates aside, the latest Gallup Poll is showing, Clinton is still struggling to close the gap among all those other Democrats. Democratic voters are favoring Obama still by 49 to 46, 46 percent the stubborn ceiling for Clinton in the last two weeks in that tracking poll. Nor is the senator heading into the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd with any kind of financial edge to help her break that ceiling.

The Clinton campaign sources telling NBC News, she raised $20 million last month but we do not know how much of that is off-limits until the general election. We do know that Obama raised twice as much last month, $40 million, adding almost to 250,000 new donors to his fundraising list and helping (ph) pay for a new ad in Pennsylvania addressing working class economic issues at the fore (ph) in that state.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BARACK OBAMA, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We‘ll fix our trade laws, end tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas, and give them those who create jobs here in America. That‘s why I approve this message.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Senator Clinton today is saying, McCain has no plan for the economy and notwithstanding Obama‘s recent call for radical regulatory reform, she called Obama timid.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: Senator Obama has been very timid and unenthusiastic about doing anything with the economy. And I have consistently, you know, said what I thought needed to be done since, you know, since last March.

And I am continuing to sound the alarm. I feel like, you know, Paulette Revere - the recession is coming, the recession is coming.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: We turn now MSNBC political analyst Richard Wolffe, also, of course, senior White House correspondent for “Newsweek” magazine. Richard, good evening.

RICHARD WOLFFE, NEWSWEEK: Good evening, Keith.

OLBERMANN: All right. Read between the lines for me on Corzine and Murtha to start off with. I mean, Corzine in that interview which was CNBC sounded positively tortured just trying to say: is there a fire escape on this floor?

WOLFFE: Yes. You know, I never knew that hedging your bets carried an audible sound. Here you have surrogates who are doing a better job of undermining the Clinton case than anything coming out of the “war room” from the Obama campaign. And, yes, I guess, look, there is a personal side to it.

They want to be on the right side of however this turns out but they have unilaterally taken away at least two major arguments for the Clinton campaign. One, about the big states. If you don‘t win the big states, then, where are you? And two, the idea that this guy called Obama is a flake and he‘s going to be a blowout loser in the general election. Those two arguments they just unilaterally took off the table again, setting expectations far too high for the Clinton campaign.

OLBERMANN: Do these people, Corzine and Murtha and people like Chuck Schumer who on Sunday, hey, said this will be over by June which can also be read as: This is better be over by June, senator. Are they the ones who‘d be eventually the names that we hear leading Senator Clinton away from the campaign if it comes to that?

WOLFFE: I think they are really important voices. Yes, because loyalty is important. These people are out there more often than not doing a better job than this instead (ph) of being surrogates. And the loyalty factor is important for the Clintons.

So, these party elders, if anyone can have a voice along with the New York delegation, as they‘d discussed before, I think, they are the ones to deliver the tough message. But we‘re obviously not there yet. It‘s premature but the “yet” part is what is so evident in those hedging, hemming, horring (ph) remarks we just heard.

OLBERMANN: All right. What are fundraising numbers mean? Because if you raise $20 million while you‘re running for president in a month at anytime to our history, that would ordinarily be an extraordinary triumph for any candidate of any party. $40 million would be a marvel.

But of course, Obama raised $55 million in February. So, I mean, are these numbers bad for both candidates just because of that context?

WOLFFE: Well, February was a really intense month for this campaign and both candidates are down by $15 million. But they are down from record numbers. $55 million is just an astonishing number.

What‘s really important is looking how much money they have in their pockets. Because when you look at the end of February, you saw Hillary Clinton with really $3 million or so left after you take out debts and everything else. Barack Obama was left with a $20 million, $30 million average in February. He‘s extended that now and that money advantage is crucial moving forward because he‘s outspending her on the air right now in Pennsylvania.

OLBERMANN: All right. How are any or all of these factors today that we‘re talking about changing that expectation game for April 22nd in Pennsylvania? In other words, what threshold does she have to hit to prevent a deluge of Obama superdelegates or even her own people to pressure her to call it quits after Pennsylvania?

WOLFFE: Well, I think it‘s better than the running average right now, in RealClearPolitics, it‘s about five points. She really needs to make a very big statement out of Pennsylvania, Partly because they said, it‘s such a big state. We have to win these big states. And so we can win them.

But she also she needs to say in order to get the superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegates, this is a compelling reason why Obama cannot win. So, five points, 10 points is probably is not going to be enough. It has to be a good double-digit victory for her right now in Pennsylvania.

OLBERMANN: The latest reliable polling, 9 percent. We‘ll see what happens. Our own Richard Wolffe, senior White House correspondent for “Newsweek.” As always, great thanks for your time and for your tiara.

WOLFFE: Thank you.

OLBERMANN: One key issue for superdelegates, if only in the minds of Senator Clinton‘s team, the question: is Obama electable? Today conflicting reports of the behind the scenes conflict over that question. A debate between former candidate and now Obama-backer, Bill Richardson and both of the Clintons: Bill and Hillary.

ABC‘s George Stephanopoulos, the former Clinton aide, reporting last night that she told Richardson before his endorsement of Obama, quote, “He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win.” Reporting that Richardson disagreed, but today, unnamed sources in the Clinton camp claim that Richardson told the Clintons before Super Tuesday that he would not endorse Obama precisely because he thought Obama could not win—cannot win.

Today, Clinton was asked about her part in this, whether she told Richardson Obama could not win.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: I don‘t talk about private conferences but I have consistently made the case that I can win, because I believe I can win. And, you know, sometimes people draw the conclusion I‘m saying somebody else can‘t win.

I can win. I know I can win. That‘s why I do this every day. And that‘s what my campaign is about. I‘m in it to win it. And I intend to do just that. It‘s a no.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Why does anyone care? Well, if Richardson did doubt Obama‘s electability, it could help fuel doubts among other superdelegates about Obama‘s electability.

And if Clinton thought Obama unelectable, it helps fuel superdelegates doubts her loyalty to the party unless, of course, the timeline of Richardson‘s conversion supposedly, from he‘s unelectable to he‘s convinced me he is electable, is exactly the point Obama‘s campaign is making about reaction of Americans to increase exposure to their candidate.

At this point, let‘s bring in MSNBC political analyst, Dana Milbank, also, of course, national political reporter from the “Washington Post.” Dana, good evening.

DANA MILBANK, WASHINGTON POST: Good evening, Keith.

OLBERMANN: Is that how the Obama campaign would want to spin this that is it perhaps, a bad idea for the Clintonite to argue, see, Big Obama-backer, Richardson, he used to be with us, he didn‘t think Obama could win but, oh, yes, now he does?

MILBANK: Right, well, they could spin it that way. I mean, we have the virtue of being true. It does seem that Richardson has made sort of a self-interested calculation here. The fact of the matter is, they don‘t need to spin it at all because what‘s happened here is the Clintons have managed to take a relatively minor endorsement. You know, I‘d say much more of Mike Gravel than Oprah.

And they‘ve blown it up into this big reverberating issue over and over again and it‘s related to Bill Clinton sort of flushed face finger-wagging temper and it‘s managed to cause another distraction for the Clinton campaign at this point. And you know, certainly, Bill Clinton knows there‘s no such thing as loyalty in politics. If you want a friend here, you get a dog.

OLBERMANN: Right. But to try to figure out which of these versions, and if they‘re obviously, exactly opposite versions happened here, is that Richardson said it to her option backed up by what Richardson told us that night that he was indeed close to endorsing Senator Clinton right after the Super Bowl and President Clinton came and visited with him in New Mexico.

And then, something made him hesitate and he stayed on the sidelines until the Obama speech on race and he said he still couldn‘t put his finger on it at that time but to him this was now the guy. That would seem to support he had gone from “no, I don‘t think he‘s electable” to “I‘m endorsing him”?

MILBANK: Right. And it‘s certainly consistent with what Richardson said. And it‘s also consistent with the overall mission of Richardson. I think it‘s been fairly noted a long time ago that he was basically not running for president, he‘s running for vice president, maybe for secretary of state.

So, he wanted to go with the winning horse here. And it is possible back then he was making a calculation that Obama couldn‘t win. Once he has decided that it‘s more likely that Obama is going to win, he wants to get on that train so that he is in line for the vice presidency or secretary of state. That‘s his self-interest but guess what? That‘s how superdelegates make decisions, too. They want to go with the perceived winner.

OLBERMANN: And then, what is the reason for sources in the Clinton campaign speaking about this to anybody, to us or George Stephanopoulos or whoever? Is there subtext? Are they thinking they got the message across that, you know, if you break for Obama, superdelegates we come after you?

MILBANK: I guess that‘s about the best you can come up with. If I were them I‘d be leaking more images of Obama bowling. But there‘s no tremendously great advantage of having it out here. Yes, there will be payback if a superdelegate goes against them. But there‘s only going to be the opportunity for payback if they actually wind up winning.

OLBERMANN: A quick point on issue we haven‘t mentioned. This expectation that the Clinton tax filings are going to be released in 24 hours—within the next 24 hours and there was a “USA Today” editorial suggesting that Bill Clinton should also reveal the funding sources behind his library and foundation, that‘s been a point that‘s been echoed lots of her critics to this point.

Are the Clintons post-presidential finances on their way towards becoming an issue in this campaign or is this just really inside the Democratic cat fight?

MILBANK: Well, the good news for her is it will probably take the Richardson story out of the headlines for a moment. But, you know there are going to be all kinds of things to pick through in the tax returns. So, that‘s going to be another few days distraction here.

I would expect a whole bunch of pushback on giving out the donors to the library and the foundation. They‘re not really required to do that. And there‘s going to be a whole lot of inevitably, whoever‘s library and foundation it is, there‘s going to be a whole lot of seedy and shady money in there. So, I‘d expect a big fight on that one.

OLBERMANN: In fact, there‘s a whole of seedy and shady money in all presidential library. Dana Milbank of the “Washington Post” and MSNBC. Thank you, Dana.

MILBANK: Thanks, Keith.

OLBERMANN: If he is running as a warrior in favor of the war in Iraq, in favor of the war in Iran, romanticizing the words of his and his family‘s past, why is John McCain not joining the bipartisan support for the new G.I. Bill?

And the John Yoo memo is already infamous in the annals of American torture. Now, it turns out there is a second John Yoo memo, it is much worse and for President Bush, it could be the smoking gun.

You are watching COUNTDOWN on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OLBERMANN: Half the U.S. senators, Democrats and Republicans alike have already endorsed the new G.I. Bill but the White House opposes it. So, naturally, John McCain is avoiding it.

And: the California congressman who just dismissed 9/11 as a plane hitting a building, requiring no more federal funding. Him against the CNN commentator who just called his CNN leagues, quote, “terrorists.” The Worst Persons derby is rich and fulfilling.

Ahead tonight on COUNTDOWN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OLBERMANN: Woodrow Wilson ran for re-election in 1916 on the slogan: “He kept us out of war.” Knowing all the time that probably before his second inaugural, we would be in one.

Dwight Eisenhower ran on a premise that only a warrior could know the true value of peace and devote his farewell speech to warnings about the military industrial complex, yet, spent his presidency escalating the cold war to immeasurable heights.

Our fourth story on the COUNTDOWN: Beware of the man who tells you, he hates war while he takes you on a guided tour of all the war-related places in his personal history, especially if at the very same time, the one place he will not go, is the place where 50 of his Senate colleagues of both parties are supporting the new G.I. Bill.

That bill is described as a no-brainer by one of its co-authors, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, save your puns (ph) about why Senator John McCain would not have yet endorsed it then.

The presumptive Republican nominee saying, quote, “I have not yet had the chance to examine it carefully. It seems to me that it is a good thing to do. But I haven‘t examined it with the care it needs. But we obviously need to do something along those lines.”

But the bill‘s co-authors: Senator Webb and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel have been actively pushing the bill for months. McCain‘s lack of leadership confounding, unless, as noted by Sam Stein of “Huffington Post”: It is compared to the resistance of the Bush administration. White House officials said the bill gives soldiers too strong an incentive to leave the Armed Forces and thus would produce low retention rates.

But in a statement, Senator Webb says, quote, “This is about providing a fair deserved benefit to our troops. Based on his own military history and how strongly he, McCain speaks about the positive contributions of the people who served. I hope that he will get onboard.”

Joining me now, Air America Radio host and MSNBC political analyst:

Rachel Maddow. Good evening.

RACHEL MADDOW, AIR AMERICA RADIO: Hi, Keith.

OLBERMANN: McCain basically selling himself as the would-be war president, and he hasn‘t looked at the G.I. Bill, yet.

MADDOW: Beggar‘s belief. The John McCain biography tour is essentially a tour of how the military has given him his world view. It‘s his experience as a veteran, the importance of the military to his maturation and to his world view, to his overall (ph) values. This is the way he is choosing to redefine himself for voters ahead of the campaign.

If you think about it, this biography tour ends when he comes home from being a prisoner of war. There isn‘t more of the biography tour about his time as a politician. He‘s choosing this as his brunt on which he is going to take his candidacy to the voters.

But if you are asking the American people to extrapolate from our respect for men and women in uniform and our respect for military service to his political future. It‘s beggar‘s belief that you would be somehow unaware of the biggest change in our nation‘s pledge to our veterans in 50 years.

OLBERMANN: And, what on earth would you be doing standing anywhere near, a basic argument from the Bush administration, we can‘t make things too good for our soldiers when they get home.

MADDOW: Right, exactly. I‘ve interviewed a lot of Iraq veterans about the G.I. Bill, talking about what are the prospects for its passage? How are we going to get this passed? Who‘s going to sign on to it?

Where‘s the resistance coming from?

And that‘s the question I asked everybody who I talked to who‘s worked on this bill. What‘s the argument against it? What‘s the resistance? I‘d love to hear it because I‘d like to help come up with the arguments against it, against that resistance.

I think this is so important in terms of our moral commitment to the people who had been fighting these wars. And the only argument against it is this argument from the White House that we can‘t possibly make things too good for the veterans, because it‘s better for the country somehow and better for them if we leave them miserable and resourceless so that they have no choice but continued military service.

OLBERMANN: But the extrapolation of that and everything else and the Stop-Loss programs and everything else that they‘ve done and McCain is going to have this fall on him at some point on this campaign, is to say, basically we want to keep sending these soldiers back into conflict until they get killed, so we don‘t have to care for them.

How on earth can you be a veteran and not, you know, raise the middle finger to that, even if it is the president from your own party?

MADDOW: Let alone put forth those policies and put forth that record and then say, USA, USA! As it‘s a patriotic take on it.

You know, Keith, we have something that‘s about to happen next week in terms of the outrage of using veterans and military service and using the armed forces as a political prop. As you know, Michael Monsoor is going to be awarded the Medal of Honor, Navy SEAL, he‘s going to be awarded that because - he‘s going to be awarded posthumously because he threw himself on a grenade.

OLBERMANN: Yes, one of like 15 acts in his brief life that deserved that award. Yes.

MADDOW: Yes, exactly. And his family is scheduled to be given his Medal of Honor. And the White House has scheduled that ceremony for Tuesday. They scheduled that ceremony as the kickoff event for General Petraeus‘ congressional testimony on why troops have to stay in Iraq.

OLBERMANN: And that ties back into this idea that this McCain tour and the entire - the Bush administration handling of veterans and the war is the romantic “don‘t think too deeply about this, you know, the dead are happier dead,” if you want to go to that point, this irrational romanticizing of war. War is a brand name.

MADDOW: Yes. War is a brand name. I mean, John McCain has said, I‘m sorry to tell you this, there‘s going to be more wars, there‘s going to be more wars. He‘s put the idea of the next war about bombing Iran to the tune of - to Beach Boys‘ tune.

He‘s described his own political biography as encapsulated completely by his pre-political life as not only somebody who served honorably in wartime but he was supposed the son of a four-star admiral, the grandson of a four-star admiral. His entire story about America and his role in it is about war and it‘s not about the mechanics of taking care of people or fighting it.

OLBERMANN: Exactly. So, Mr. McCain, this administration and the one you‘re proposing would have left you in the Hanoi Hilton. That‘s what it boils down to.

All right, are you ready for tomorrow night?

MADDOW: Yes, I am.

OLBERMANN: I can‘t say what it is. But if you remember, tune in tomorrow night, something with Rachel. Rachel Maddow of Air America and MSNBC, see you later, thanks.

MADDOW: Thank you, Keith.

OLBERMANN: If you remember the good old days when people still tried to make a lip sync look legit. I mean, this guy, he‘s singing, he‘s not even moving his lips.

And: What does Glenn Beck of CNN do now? He just called reporter Randi Kaye, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, host Anderson Cooper and everybody else at CNN, quote, “terrorists.”

Worse Persons ahead.

But first: The headlines breaking in the administration‘s 50 running scandal—Bushed.

Number three: Gonzo-gate. It keeps on ruining lives and neutering the Justice Department. Its inspector general is now investigating why last year, Justice did not renew the contract of its own liaison to the U.S. attorneys committee on Native American issues. Leslie Hagen had gotten the highest possible scores on her official job evaluation, the guy would hired her and described as the best qualified person in the nation and Ms. Hagen got fired.

Why? The inspector general is investigating evidence that Monica Goodling, Alberto Gonzales‘ senior counsel, that woman with that law degree she got in by sending 100 box stuff to religious lunatic university. Goodling heard a rumor that Ms. Hagen was a lesbian. And of course, she limited her duties and then, fired her.

Goodling never heard that department‘s name quite right. Justice.

Not injustice, lady. Justice.

Number two: Support the troops-gate. Five years after we sent our friends and relatives to fight in Iraq and it appears, some of them might still as well be wearing a catcher‘s chest protector and colander as body armor. The Army‘s inspector general can‘t be sure that at least half the body armor that the Army provided between 2004 and 2006 met the safety standards because it never conducted the required tests on it.

And number one: Iran-gate. The administration happily wrings its hands when some announcement out of al Qaeda confirms its worse fears, and by that I mean, what it wants you to fear the worse. When the terrorists say something that contradicts the Bush-McCain world view, it is silence and crickets.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, still the number jackass in al Qaeda, with a statement on the prospect of a conflict between the U.S. and Iran, quote, “The situation will be in the interest of the mujahedeen if the war saps both of them. If however, one of them emerges victorious, its influence will intensify and fierce battles will begin between it and the mujahedeen.”

Translation: Al Qaeda hates Iran. Zawahiri has also said that Iran has stabbed the Muslim nation in the back. Al Qaeda thinks we would be doing them a favor if we attacked Iran. And if Iran somehow did well in that fight with us, then, al Qaeda would target Iran.

In other words the drum beat against Iran which General Petraeus will again start next week, the one McCain started again last month is 100 percent crap.

If you‘d like this country to go into business with al Qaeda, George Bush and John McCain, they‘re your guys.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OLBERMANN: Kind of a big moment in history on this date in the year 33. You would think there would be a lot more coverage of it. Assuming the man existed, and he met his end the way we are told he did, and that a mid-day lunar eclipse followed his execution, astronomers have calculated that on this date, 1975 years ago, Jesus Christ was crucified at Jerusalem.

Let‘s play Oddball.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN (voice-over): We begin at Balapada Chuba (ph), India, where Mala Medi (ph) has spent 15 years honing his own unique talent. He claims he can sing without ever opening his mouth like this here.

(SINGING)

OLBERMANN: Wow. Britney Spears has just lost it. Apparently, no one has informed Mr Medi that he has trained 15 years to do what he hopes will get him in the Guinness Book of Record, what is actually known as humming.

Brigham City, Utah, where this terrifying creature surfaced in a parking lot next to a pond. Local officials reacting with the kind of aplomb you would expect under such circumstances.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When we first saw that fish, we thought what in the crap is this thing?

OLBERMANN: Your tax dollars in action. They still haven‘t figured it out. One aquatic expert thinks it is just a desiccated lake trout. Considering the carcass had already been chewed up by a dog and ran over by a car before it was discovered, and therefore is unrecognizable, we might never find out what the crap is this thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: The paper trail has never been more clear, however, about this: we tortured detainees on the authority of President George W. Bush.

And from blowing up infamous baseballs to infecting other more famous shows with our COUNTDOWN-iness, five years in five minutes ahead. But first time for COUNTDOWN‘s top three best persons in the world.

Number three, best scene from the “World According to Garth” brought to life, Army Rice of Minneapolis. Her dog, a lab retriever named Ella, was suddenly under attack by a pit bull, which had leaped Rice‘s back yard fence. So Miss Rice jumped into the fray, and while trying to save her own dog, she somehow bit the pit bull in the nose. The attacking dog fled.

We do not know if Miss Rice quoted Glen Close from the movie, but she could have said, “Garp bit Bonky.”

Number two, best bad use of good luck, Jill Foreman of Lake Charles, Louisiana. Her car was stolen. The cops found it and called the owner, Miss Foreman, and left a message for her. She apparently was confused at just who had phoned and left the message, because when she called the officers back, they say, she thought they were crack dealers and she asked to buy 150 dollars worth off of them. She is under arrest now, but the car is safe.

Number one, best dumb criminal, Mr. Cash Burch of Waterloo, Iowa, arrested there for having tried to steal a Ford Explorer. The evidence is pretty overwhelming. Mr. Burch allegedly broke into the car, but did such a bad job starting it that he wore down the battery. When the battery wears down in these Explorers, the anti-theft defense system kicks. And when the anti-theft defense system kicks in the doors lock.

That is how they found Mr. Cash Burch, who had managed only to lock himself into a car he was trying to steal.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OLBERMANN: The president‘s war-time authority trumps U.S. laws against torture. Torture is only torture if it results in death or near death. Our third story on the COUNTDOWN, a new paper trail documenting the Bush administration‘s impetus to torture, and just who provided it and just which Keifer Sutherland character helped inspire it. I‘m not kidding.

Under a judge‘s order, the Pentagon has released a hitherto classified torture memo, penned in March 2003, written by the same Justice Department lawyer, John Yoo, who had drafted a less explicit torture memo in 2002, which until today we thought was pretty damn bad. In the 2003 opinion, he appears to argue that when it comes to interrogating and detaining and even torturing so called enemy combatants, executive authority is absolute.

Quote, “we do not believe that Congress enacted general criminal provisions, such as the prohibitions against assault, maiming, interstate stalking and torture, pursuant to any express authority that would allow it to infringe on the president‘s constitutional control over the operation of the armed forces in war time.”

As to what that torture, in accordance with its definition in various U.S. laws as severe pain, the memo concludes that, quote, “ to constitute torture severe pain must rise to a similarly high level, the level that would ordinarily be associated with a physical condition or injury sufficiently serious that it would result in death, organ failure or serious impairment of body functions.”

As far as what might not cause death, organ failure or serious impairment, “Vanity Fair Magazine” reporting that in September 2002, when officials at Guantanamo Bay were debating which interrogation techniques to use, one man, quote, gave people lots of ideas, Jack Bauer of the fictional series “24.” It was in its second season on Fox Television.

We are joined now by Jonathan Turley, the constitutional law professor and scholar at George Washington University. John, thanks for your time tonight.

JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Thank you, Keith.

OLBERMANN: Let‘s start with this Yoo memo, the torture memo. It was written for the Pentagon the month the U.S. invaded Iraq. A year after the kind of torture that the memo authorizes comes to light in Iraq. Does that chain of sequence blow the administration‘s it was a few bad apples at Abu Ghraib argument out of the water?

TURLEY: It does. I know John Yoo. It is very personally disappointing to see his name on these memos. Of course, it is nothing new. It destroys the idea that these were just hicks with sticks. They blamed a West Virginia military unit and basically portrayed them as a bunch of thugs. What they were doing is strangely similar to what is laid out carefully in these memos.

So the administration was able to force all of the attention on the low-lying fruit and to protect themselves. That took a lot of effort. It took a lot of lawyers. And I think that in the end of this terrible legacy, I think many lawyers will be ashamed of the role that we played, even those of us who opposed it. The fact that lawyers facilitated these acts is a very, very dark chapter for the American Bar.

OLBERMANN: Yes, it reads parallel to the entire lay out of the plot of the movie “Judgment at Nuremberg,” how you twist a legal system to just provide excuses for a government. To that point, this memo has a bunch of rationales in it, as you suggested, not just to protect the president, but the individual interrogators, from future prosecution. It argues that you could hurt a prisoner and you can perhaps deem it as self-defense against al Qaeda.

How far of a legal stretch is that? How on Earth do you back that up?

TURLEY: It is not even a legal stretch. There is nothing to it. It is an effort to spin, to give some type of cover. The president and his aides were very, very careful to go to the lawyers first, so that they could make a claim that they were acting under some assumption of actual authority. But there really is none.

Part of the problem, I think for all of us who have JDs, is that most of us believe we have a sacred duty, at some point, to stand with the law and against those who would break it. While everyone keeps on pointing to when these memos were written, our job is to be dispassionate. It‘s not to go with the passions of the moment. When you read this memo, it tries so hard to give the president what he wants, and that is the right to do anything that he wants.

OLBERMANN: And it also tries to pick it, as you suggest, and leave it for posterity as something that went up the chain rather than down. Yet, in the “Vanity Fair” thing, there‘s a story about September 2002; there are three visitors to Gitmo, Cheney‘s counsel, David Adington, Rumsfeld‘s counsel, Jim Haines, Alberto Gonzales, who at that point was still Bush‘s counsel. They discussed the interrogation techniques, then they watched them being employed, and one of the attorneys in Gitmo, Diane Beaver (ph) said, they left this clear to do—here‘s the quote—“whatever needed to be done.” That was a green light from the top.”

That‘s it, a green light from the very top.

TURLEY: Right. It is really amazing, because Congress, including the Democrats, have avoided any type of investigation into torture, because they do not want to deal with the fact that the president ordered war crimes. But evidence keeps on coming out. The only thing we don‘t have is a group picture with a detainee attached to electrical wires. Every time we see more evidence; we have more and more high ranking people at the scene of this crime.

What you get from this is that this was a premeditated and carefully orchestrated torture program. Not torture, but a torture program.

OLBERMANN: And the only person who will ever actually be blamed for this will be Jack Bauer, correct?

TURLEY: Well, that explains why torture supposedly stopped. They are off season. I guess they are just waiting.

OLBERMANN: Thank goodness there was something good to that TV writer‘s strike. Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, as always, sir, greatest thanks.

TURLEY: Thank you, Keith.

OLBERMANN: We hope we are not overdoing this fifth anniversary stuff. We would not want to offend Ron Burgundy, and we would certainly not want to offend William Hung.

That boat, of course, has sailed for Congressman Darrell Issa of California, after trivializing 9/11 and what the first responders did, does he resign from the House or do we throw him out? Worst persons ahead on COUNTDOWN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OLBERMANN: Were you there when our special guest was the famed San Diego anchorman Ron Burgundy? Were you watching when our special guest fell over backwards in her little plastic chair in Wisconsin? How about the night we all signed Bill-O‘s petition to get our own show canceled. Five years of COUNTDOWN distilled into five minutes. That‘s next. First, time for our number two story, tonight‘s worst persons in the world.

The bronze to Rupert Murdoch, speaking at Georgetown University;

“People laugh at us because we call ourselves fair and balanced.” True. “The fact is CNN has always been extremely liberal, never had a Republican or conservative voice. The only difference is we have equal voices on both sides.” Sure, you have fascists and conservatives.

Seriously, the Washington Generals of liberals, Alan Colmes and who?

And CNN never had a conservative? Lou Dobbs would scare Atilla the Hun. Pat Buchanan was the original co-host of “Crossfire.” Robert Novack was on there from 1980 through 2005. Rupert, I always thought you were smarter than this. You believe your own crap?

The runner up, Glenn Beck of CNN, takes a brace stance on the Wal-Mart suit against Debbie Shank, the one in which even Wal-Mart figured out that legally right is not the same as morally right and dropped its own suit to reclaim medical expense money from its former employee. Calling the media attention to the story blackmail and the reporters who covered it terrorists, and claiming Wal-Mart folded before the terrorists.

Firstly, this man has children. Secondly, I hate to break it to you Glenny, but the network on which the legal analysts and the correspondent high fived over Wal-Mart‘s admiral reversal, the network which claimed sole credit for getting Wal-Mart to make that reversal was CNN. You‘re beginning to hear that Glenn may have to start looking for a new place to TV.

Our winner and straight into the Worst Hall of Fame, Congressman Darrell Issa of California, who has four times run on the radical right wing platform of fear on terrorists, imminence of attack, the whole smear. At hearings about getting some federal funding for 9/11 first responders who have become gravely ill, who may become the last fatalities of the attack on the World Trade Center, Issa ended his political career.

Quoting, “I have to ask why the fire fighters who went there and everyone in the city of New York needs to come to the federal government. It‘s very simple. I can‘t vote for additional money for New York if I can‘t see why it would be appropriate to do this every single time a similar situation happens, which, quite frankly, includes any urban terrorists. It doesn‘t have to be somebody from al Qaeda. It can be someone who decides that they don‘t like animal testing at one of our pharmaceutical facilities.

“It simply was an aircraft, residue of two aircraft and residue from the materials used to build this building, that had no dirty bomb in it. It had no chemical munitions in it.”

Congressman Issa, it was just an aircraft? Resign. Resign quickly while you still have some control of this situation. Congressman Darrell Issa of California, fiend, today‘s Worst Person in the World.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OLBERMANN: This is the literal truth: after three years away from this company, I was re-hired by NBC in October 2002 to work on the broadcast of the 2004 Olympics. Almost by accident, I was asked to fill in for three days, guest hosting the 5:00 p.m. Eastern time show of the late Jerry Nackman here on MSNBC. Next thing I know, it is five years later, at least 1,200 editions of COUNTDOWN later. And on Monday, this was the third highest rated program in cable news. Last night it was second.

Our number one story tonight, five years condensed to five minutes and 18 seconds, because—because—well, actually, it beats the hell out of me why. Just play the tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN (voice-over): Which of these stories will make the

COUNTDOWN?

It began with a simple premise—

(on camera): The first full edition of COUNTDOWN, a newscast in which our top five stories of the day are presented in ascending order.

(voice-over): News with numbers, serious mixed with silly.

(on camera): Don‘t say I didn‘t warn you. Who does he think he is F-ing kidding.

Oh, a kitty.

Oops.

That‘s COUNTDOWN. Thanks for being part of it.

(voice-over): And in the early days, as the cliche goes, I might as well have been talking to myself.

(on camera): You never have the same opinion two days in a row.

Like the stuff in your head.

Who cares about sports any way, you cheese eating surrender monkey.

(voice-over): We did, however, have reason to believe the show would succeed.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You look pretty good. I think you look OK already.

OLBERMANN: (on camera): Jacqueline Stallone of JacquelineStallone.com, many thanks for the forecast. We appreciate it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You‘ll be OK. Don‘t worry. You can say, that‘s not for the public to know.

OLBERMANN: Yes, indeed.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Now what kind of questions are you going to ask me?

OLBERMANN: Time to fulfill our promise and introduce you to the candidate of the night.

(voice-over): Even though some guests were more difficult than others.

(on camera): We have the number one.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can put it up anywhere you like.

OLBERMANN: I didn‘t know where you were going with that remark.

Did you bring me a pony?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: More than a pony. I‘ll tell you that.

OLBERMANN: Thank you very much.

(voice-over): We certainly had some choice guest bookings, like the monkey pox family, with the infected rodent and the gravity challenged daughter.

(on camera): Cheyenne pulled up a chair and joined us right in the middle of the interview outside their home in Wisconsin. Oh, you better take care of her. It never stops. Thanks for your time.

(voice-over): The girl was fine. How could the show ever get any better.

WILLIAM HUNG, FORMER “AMERICAN IDOL” CONTESTANT: Young man, there is no need to feel down. I say, young man, take yourself off the ground.

OLBERMANN: And pick ourselves up, we did. Nobody freaked out.

(on camera): You‘ve got to get mad. You‘ve got to say, I‘m a human being, damn it.

(voice-over): As we carried on, certain truths began to present themselves. Some of the worst people in the world came out of the woodwork.

(on camera): Bill O‘Reilly, today‘s worst person in the world.

Today‘s worst person in the world.

Today‘s worst person in the—you know the rest.

(voice over): Despite our sounding the alarm, the Constitution began to get flushed down the toilet.

(on camera): As you can see, even without Habeas Corpus, at least 1/10 of the Bill of Rights—I guess that‘s the bill of right now.

(voice-over): And Bush administration double speak took on epic proportions.

ALBERTO GONZALES, FMR. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think we agree on what would be improper.

I think we also agree on what would be improper.

It would be improper to remove a U.S. attorney and interfere with or influence a particular prosecution for partisan political gain.

OLBERMANN: Eventually, other networks began to hurt, because COUNTDOWN was, well, busting off.

It‘s over. It‘s all over.

Elements at Fox News tried to have this show taken off the air by a petition. So we all signed it.

(on camera): Let‘s see, put in the e-mail address.

(voice-over): I guess I figured I could catch on with some other show.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Keith Olbermann.

OLBERMANN: That‘s right, content burglar Marge Simpson.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All I ask in return is that you let my company do just a little bit of dumping in your lake.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This guy don‘t sit right with me, Lois. He don‘t sit right with me.

OLBERMANN: But we all weathered the storm and the staff and I learned a lot along the way. For one thing, we learned Sulu from “Star Trek” has a crush on me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: George, who is the hottest reporter here? If you would point him out?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Unquestionably Keith Olbermann.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: George likes Keith.

OLBERMANN: We learned also that all of my producers are terrible actors.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, yes. This is Keith Olbermann we are talking about. Hello, the ego has landed. I wouldn‘t say any of the stuff to his safe, but the man is --

OLBERMANN: And we learned our executive producer and I met 21 years before we thought we had met, when I was a CNN reporter and I asked her why Reggie Jackson got cheered at Yankee Stadium as a California Angel, and she answered—

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good question. Why didn‘t these people cheer him when he was here.

OLBERMANN: Good question, much better answer. Maybe the only better question, after five amazing years with you, how long can the COUNTDOWN last?

My best guest is, a, as long as we don‘t lose this tape.

The interview outside Wisconsin. Oh, you better take care of her.

And, B, as long as we keep sharing the love.

HUNG: And can you feel the love tonight?

OLBERMANN: Come on!

Hello.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

OLBERMANN: The Count. That‘s COUNTDOWN for this the 1,799th day since the declaration of mission accomplished in Iraq. By the way, this crappy fountain behind me here, they are going to take this away tomorrow. I‘m Keith Olbermann, good night and good luck.

Transcript of 'Countdown with Keith Olberman' for March 20, 2008

Transcript:

KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: Breaking news at this hour: Sources at the campaign of Senator Barack Obama confirming there has been some sort of security violation involving unauthorized access to the personal passport file belonging to Senator Obama.

Details are still sketchy at this hour, but the Obama campaign is expected to issue a statement within moments. And we will bring it to you here as soon as we have it.
(voice over): Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow?

Reverent Wright unexpectedly hurts Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Reverend Wright unexpectedly hurts John McCain’s campaign. Two Wrights do make a wrong.

The Democratic doomsday strategy: Senator Clinton refusing to deny reports that her advisers have been telling superdelegates that Jeremiah Wright makes Barack Obama unelectable.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, my campaign has been making the case that I am the most electable, that I have said that for a year or more. I believe I am the person best able to meet the challenges that our country faces as commander in chief.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: ABC News says she was then asked again if her campaign specifically using Jeremiah Wright, says the senator shrugged and did not answer.

And the McCain campaign and the pastor: It distributed a racist video tying Wright and Obama and Obama’s wife Malcolm X and the wearing of American flag pins. The McCain staffer involved suspended, but not fired.

And: Guess who didn’t like Obama’s speech?

Even the part in which he said it would be wrong to:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BARACK OBAMA, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: “To equate what I said with what this racist bigot has said from the pulpit is unbelievable,” says Geraldine Ferraro, today.

And the McCain corrections of the day: All extremists are al Qaeda. No, it wasn’t a lie or conflation, just a slip up, the four times he said it this week.

Oh, and the time he said it on February 28th?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, ® PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Al Qaeda is there, they are functioning. They are supported in many ways by the Iranians.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: All right. Play the standard “old man yells at cloud” correction tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: I’m sorry the Iranians are training extremists, not al Qaeda.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Now, a new one from Israel about the Jewish holiday, Purim.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN, (I) CONNECTICUT: It’s my fault that I said to Senator McCain that this is the Israeli version of Halloween. It is of a sense that the kids dress up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: All that and more: Now on COUNTDOWN.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: Of Halloween here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN (on camera): Good evening, this is Thursday, March 20th, 229 days until the 2008 presidential election.

Again, we are waiting a statement from the campaign of Senator Barack Obama after an Internet report tonight that the personal passport file of Senator Obama has been in some way compromised. Details are still sketchy, but the Obama campaign is to make a statement about that report and an investigation of it within moments. We will bring it to you as soon as we have it from them.

Our fifth story on the COUNTDOWN: Not unauthorized access but unexpected interest. The two other presidential campaigns surprisingly today, invoking the controversy over Reverend Jeremiah Wright and that involves them playing grab ass with at least one third rail of American politics.

Senator McCain on his way from his fact-finding trip to the Middle East, stopping in London for a fundraising luncheon, his campaign announcing that it has suspended a staff member in its political department for circulating a video that splices together clips from Reverend Wright’s most controversial sermons with Senator Obama’s own comments about his former pastor with Michelle Obama’s remarks that her husbands campaign makes her proud to be, truly proud to be an American for the first time, while also linking Senator Obama to Malcolm X, to John Carlos and Tommie Smith. The two 1968 Olympians who raised their first in a black power salute.

The entire thing set to the public enemy song, “Fight the Power” and post it on Youtube. The McCain campaign is saying that that staffer acted in violation of the type of campaign it intends to run.

Senator Clinton meanwhile, intending to run this phase of her campaign, raising doubts about her opponents electability. And in the undue twist, legitimacy with Reverend Wright apparently invoked. Senator Clinton is taking questions, at least some questions, from reporters outside of diner in Terre Haute, Indiana, where voters will head to the polls on May 6th.

“The New York Times” reporting this morning that aides to Senator Clinton told them, in the words of the paper, quote, “They had spent recent days making the case to wavering superdelegates, that Mr. Obama’s association with Mr. Wright would doom their party in the general election.” The paper adding that, “The argument could be Mrs. Clinton’s last hope for winning this contest.”

With that as back draft, Senator Clinton welcoming an opportunity to question Senator Obama’s electability in a general election in a general sense.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: Well, my campaign has been making the case that I am the most electable, that I have said that for a year or more. I believe I am the person best able to meet the challenges that our country faces as commander in chief and to manage the economy as president. And I believe that I am the candidate best able to beat John McCain.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Before continuing with that, NBC News at this hour has confirmed that there is an investigation into a report of a security breach, not described in any other detail than that, into the personal passport file that would involve the State Department in some way of Senator Barack Obama.

To repeat: NBC News is now able to confirm that there is an investigation, at least, into this report that in some ways, Senator Obama’s personal passport file at the State Department has been in some way, compromised in terms of its security.

We’ll continue to follow that story up and we’re waiting for a statement from the Obama campaign at any moment.

In the interim, ABC News reported that in a follow up to that last comment from Senator Clinton, quote, “Clinton was then asked specifically if her campaign was pushing the Wright story. She shrugged and took the next question, ignoring the reporter.”

With the Michigan legislature having adjourned today, Senator Clinton is also pinning her hopes for the nomination on Senator Obama’s legitimacy, should the Florida and Michigan delegates not be seated.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominees without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: The statement is just in from Senator Obama’s campaign:

“This is an outrageous breach of security and privacy even from an administration that has shown little regard for either over the last eight years.” This is of the letterhead of Bill Burton, the press secretary of the Obama’s campaign about the violation of the Obama passport file apparently at the State Department.

To continue the quote, “Our government’s duty is to protect the private information of the American people, not use it for political purposes. This is a serious matter that merits a complete investigation and we demand to know who looked at Senator Obama’s passport file, for what purpose and why it took so long for them to reveal this security breach.” Those are, again, the quotes from Obama campaign spokesman, Bill Burton.

Let’s go directly at this point to Howard Fineman, the senior Washington correspondent for “Newsweek” magazine and of course, a regular visitor with us here on MSNBC.

Howard, good evening.

HOWARD FINEMAN, NEWSWEEK: Good evening, Keith.

OLBERMANN: What do we know about this? It sounds as if that Bill Burton is assuming, we know a little bit more about it than we do. There is an apparent breach of the security of Senator Obama’s passport file and it somehow can be contributed back to the current occupants of at least, the State Department?

FINEMAN: Well, apparently so. I just got word of this a little while ago, saw that statement and got a call from somebody just shortly ago about it. My sense of it is that the administration was required, for some reason, I don’t know yet why, to inform Obama himself and his lawyers that some kind of breach had happened.

Now, the questions obviously are going to be: Who breached it and why? Whether information from his file got out, whether the Obama campaign knows about that? What aspects of his travels people were looking at?

It’s all too reminiscent for those with a long memory of the fact that the first Bush administration rummaged through Bill Clinton’s passport file back in ‘92. So, now, we have Bush Two and his administration, apparently rummaging through the passport records of yet another Democratic candidate.

OLBERMANN: There is no implication of any tampering with this file because obviously, if somebody went to that degree, that could make for all sorts of problems suggesting that a man was somewhere where he was not, if you change his records in the State Department. But there’s no implication of that, but there is an implication that somebody was looking.

And moreover, again, going through Bill Burton’s statement: Why it took so long for them to reveal this security breach? Evidently, this happened sometime in the distance. This is in the distant past. This is not a recent event.

FINEMAN: Right. Don’t forget the question of Obama’s travels has already come up both positive and negative. He’s talked on his book about traveling back to Kenya, to look at his roots. Then, you have somebody circulating a picture of him in native garb from Somalia.

So, the issue has already come up. Barack Obama is a citizen of the world. And there are many positive aspects to that. It looks like somebody within the administration was curious about what downsides they might be able to find. That’s all I can say at this point.

OLBERMANN: Here’s something we’re getting out of our reporting out of the State Department.

State Department officials are confirming to NBC News: Two contract employees of the department were terminated from their jobs. There have been firings over this. And a third individual was discipline for accessing the passport records of Senator Obama, quote, without a need to do so. These three people who had access to passport records of Senator Obama were contract employees of the department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs.

A monitoring system, according to this source, “was tripped when an employee accessed records of a high-profile individual. When the monitoring system is tripped, we immediately seek an explanation for the record’s access. If the explanation is not satisfactory, the supervisor is notified.”

The State Department uses clear contractors to design, again, quoting the source now, “build and maintain our system and clear contract employees provide support to governmental employees and several steps of passport processing include data entry, files searches, customer service and quality control.”

This is, again, the spokesman at the State Department telling NBC News, confirming that there’d been two State Department firings contract employees, people who improperly accessed the passport files of Senator Barack Obama, obviously, one of the two Democratic candidates for president.

Each time an employee logs on, he or she acknowledges the records are protected by the Privacy Act and that there only available on a “need to know” basis.

That’s what we have out of NBC News reporting out of the State Department. What did you hear in there that adds to our understanding of what the story is, Howard?

FINEMAN: Well, this was a case of curiosity overcoming the law and the question would be: What the contract employees were up to? Who they knew outside of the State Department? What contacts they might have had politically in Republican circles, one must assume, or other circles?

Let’s not just assume Republicans. Who knows (INAUDIBLE) -- key questions are going to be: Who were these fired employees? Who do they know? Who might they have talked to about what they saw? What did they see? Were they looking for something going in?

This is a huge story and it could play out in many directions in the administration, in the ranks of Republican candidates or even in the ranks of rival Democratic candidates. We just don’t know at it point. But it’s highly significant and it real puts in the shade all the other stuff we’ve been talking about for the last few days.

OLBERMANN: And now, we have a time frame for it too. We have another report out of our crack department at the State Department, the unauthorized activity occurring, involving the Obama passport information took place in January 2008. So, approximately two months ago, we don’t when in January.

But this is not something that happened last week and they apparently informed Senator Obama, or at least his campaign, based on what Bill Burton, the press secretary is just saying. Obviously, immediately, they appear to found this out, I’m inferring from reading between the lines here of what Bill Burton has said, and I’m going to quote this again in a moment. That they found out about this perhaps as late as this afternoon, that’s what this sounds like, doesn’t it?

FINEMAN: Well, that’s amazing. That sets light years in political terms. And don’t forget, in January, Obama was just on the rise as a national figure. What that means in terms of who was curious and why, we don’t know. But he was still just coming on and what were the first of the primaries and making his first political statements by getting ready to and winning the Iowa caucuses. So, he was—it’s just absolutely fascinating and beyond that, I really can’t say.

OLBERMANN: All right. Let me just recap this again for those who are joining us in progress of what we can amiably put together.

A report broke late this evening, I should say late this evening, late this evening in terms of our preparation for COUNTDOWN. It broke about 7:30 this evening, Eastern Time. That there was some kind of investigation and there had been firings and a security breach at the State Department involving unauthorized and access to the personal passport file of Senator Barack Obama.

The first confirmation of this came from sources within the Obama campaign a little bit before 8:00 o’clock Eastern tonight, and then, a statement came from press secretary, Bill Burton of the Obama campaign.

Let me read it to you again in full.

“This is an outrageous breach of security and privacy even from an administration that have shown little regard for either over the last eight years.” Pinning the blame precisely on the Bush administration for this, “Our government’s duty,” resumes the statement, “is to protect the private information of the American, not use it for political purposes.”

That gives you a hint as to what their understanding is of what happened to this, little look inside the files of the Obama file at the State Department. “This is a serious matter that merits a complete investigation and we demand to know who looked at Senator Obama’s passport file, for what purpose and why it took so long for them to reveal this security breach?”

That’s Bill Burton’s statement.

We know from our reporting by NBC News at the State Department that this occurred in January of 2008. And there is an investigation going internally at the State Department right now. Two contract employees of the department have been terminated, fired from their jobs, a third individual disciplined for accessing the passport records, quote, “without a need to do so.” Three people who had access to passport records were contract employees of the department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs and a monitoring system was tripped when an employee accesses records of high-profile individuals and we don’t know more beyond that.

Howard?

FINEMAN: Well, Keith. The other thing you immediately want to ask is: Who else in the State Department knew what? Just because these two contract players have been sacked doesn’t mean a lot of other people up the chain of command not only learned about this breach of security but may have also been curious to know what was in Barack Obama’s passport file.

So, the next round of questions is going to go, obviously, to Condi Rice and others at the State Department. What did you know and when did you know it? Were these contract players, people who were well known to you? Did they talk about what they have seen?

This is a lot of time, as I say, this is light years in political terms from January to now for this to have been rattling around within the State Department and within the administration and beyond the State Department, what did the White House know and when did they know it?

George Bush isn’t running again, but he has a lot of interest in seeing a Republican succeed him. And this goes way back to just at that the time when Obama was really coming on as a major figure, who was for the first time somebody you could think as a possible nominee of the Democratic Party and the challenger to whoever the Republicans would put up.

OLBERMANN: All right. We know now that giving these people the absolute benefit of the doubt at the State Department, let’s assume for the sake of argument, this occurred on January 31st, somewhere in there. That’s 50 days ago.

And we also know from this statement from our reporting at the State Department, that the monitoring system that alerted the State Department that somebody was looking into these files, obviously, computer files when they should not have been. When it is tripped, we immediately seek an explanation for the records accessed, if the explanation is not satisfactory, the supervisor is notified.

So, we are talking about, realistically, a period of time where this just sort of hung inside at least the State Department, as you suggest, a period of time of at least 50 days, nearly two months, at minimum. If this happened earlier in January, you’re pushing three months on this now. This is extraordinary.

FINEMAN: I can’t believe, don’t know, but my hypothesis would be that it could not—there’s no way it didn’t come to the attention of the Secretary of State. The fact that Barack Obama’s passport file, records had been breached, it had to have gone all the way up to the Secretary of State.

And if it went to Condi Rice, it had to have gone all the way to the White House. And there are going to be lots of questions asked about what the chain of command up from that consular office knew and when they knew it.

OLBERMANN: Yes.

FINEMAN: Not to mention what’s in the file that they were looking for.

OLBERMANN: Do we have any idea, do you have any idea, because obviously, I’m asking the question, I don’t. Do we have any idea where Consular Affairs fits into that hierarchy at the State Department? That doesn’t sound like it’s at the Secretary of State’s pay grade level.

FINEMAN: No, it doesn’t. But the Consular Affairs offices deal with embassies around the world, they deal with consular matters—American consulates all around the world. And it’s the American consulates all around the world who liaison for Americans when Americans travel abroad.

So, there may have been some contacts that the liaison officers in Consular Affairs around the world had when Obama traveled, wherever he traveled. I think, mostly, it was to Africa, I think maybe to Europe. I don’t know all the places he traveled. But all of that would be in that record and any comments by consular officials who may have dealt with him abroad would be in there as well.

And so, they would know and they might even have been reporting on what Obama was up to on those places because don’t forget, he was first an Illinois state legislator, then a United States senator. And, you know, he’s been a rising national figure now for three or four years. So, they may have been looking for whatever comments there might have been from those American officials abroad in those files.

OLBERMANN: All right, Howard Fineman of “Newsweek” and MSNBC, stay close because I think if you can get anything more on this, obviously, we want to hear about it from you.

FINEMAN: Sure.

OLBERMANN: I’m going to switch over to David Shuster, our reporter at MSNBC in Washington who can at least walk us through being the kind of guy who knows this sort of stuff. Walk us through where the Bureau of Consular Affairs where apparently this security violation occurred in Senator Obama’s passport file. Where does that fit into that hierarchy at State?

DAVID SHUSTER, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Well, Chris, in the flow chart, essentially, it falls under the Undersecretary of State for Management. He’s responsible for a lot of different bureaus and agencies, including the Office of Consular Affairs, as it’s called.

The person who is the undersecretary of state is Patrick F. Kennedy. He is a career foreign service officer, but he just took his position, he was just confirmed and took office in November of 2007. So, in other words, that just two months before the primary started.

But, again, in just a cursory look, Keith, Patrick F. Kennedy, no major controversies associated with him at the State Department other than some issues related to some to the embassy in Baghdad. But conceivably, he would be the person with direct knowledge if in fact, information flowed up to him about this effort to get Obama’s passport. He would have been the first in the chain of command overseeing this Office of Consular Affairs to have been told either about the breach or have been told about how the State Department was now going to handle it, now that this information had been received.

Again, Patrick F. Kennedy, a career foreign service officer. Not somebody with a deep political background at all, Keith.

OLBERMANN: Do we have any idea, do you have any idea of the context here that we’ve already established? If this occurred in January as our reporting at States suggests, I mean, we have a minimum span here of 50 days. The urgency of Bill Burton, Obama’s press secretary, statement tonight, suggests that they found out about this very recently, I would assume no earlier than today, maybe no earlier than tonight.

Do we have an idea of the protocol for violations of American citizens’ passport files, let alone U.S. senators’ passport files? How soon they are typically notified? Is this 60 days rapid fire response by State, is it extraordinarily slow? Do we any idea?

SHUSTER: Keith, I don’t know about the notification as far as the breach, but I can tell you that there was independent counsel investigation launched when Bill Clinton’s passport files were essentially breached back in 1991. That was one of the issues that led to a special counsel, an independent counsel investigating the administration of President George H. W. Bush to determine who was responsible? Was it contained? Was there information that was deliberately taken out and use for political purposes?

If memory serves me correctly, the independent counsel, the investigation at that time found that it was isolated and there had not been political harm done with the information against Bill Clinton. But that does underscore what Howard was talking about and that is what a sensitive and big story this is, when you have a presidential nominee as Barack Obama seems like he’s headed.

And in the midst of this, information an administration run by the other party, is essentially breached and perhaps, again, the big question is: How it was pointing out? What was done with this information? Was there any information that could be damaging to Barack Obama in the general election? And who at the State Department knew about it and once they knew about it, what did they do?

OLBERMANN: All right. David Shuster, like (ph) your job, that you want make a few phone calls, take that opportunity.

Now, Andrea Mitchell who has covered the State Department as well as long as anybody is joining us by phone from a plane in Washington.

Andrea, we have this pinned by the Obama campaign directly on the administration as an outrageous breach of security and privacy even from an administration who’d shown little regard for either over the last eight years. They start by saying this is the Bush administration’s fault? Is that conclusion a leap or is it a fair one, do you think?

ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, it’s certainly fair to say that the Bush administration, the State Department knew about this reportedly since January and did not immediately notify the Obama campaign. So, that’s a pretty big step because they should have been immediately notified if these breach occurred, the security breach.

These contract employees were, as I understand it, hired to enter data, to work on passports in the Consular Affairs Office. So, they were not political appointees or they were not people who are in the Foreign Service or in any way part of the administration.

That said, one has to wonder well first of all, whether they were just grueling around and you know, snooping or was this more than casual? Was this opposition research from any other presidential candidates? Was it something from the administration itself going after private data on Senator Obama?

And David Shuster is actually correct that there was an investigation, I covered it back in 1992. And reached to level of a special prosecutor looking into whether the Bush administration had illegally and improperly accessed Bill Clinton’s passport data, if you recall going back to the whole question of where he has gone to Moscow as a student. Keith?

OLBERMANN: Yes. The file, Andrea, the range of what this could have been originally runs the gamut from a Watergate in like deliberate attempt to sabotage or at least to pry all the way to what you suggested that it was three guys who had access to the computer and said, let’s go find out what it says in Barack Obama’s file because we can’t find Michael Jordan’s file.

We have no idea what it was originally. But it seems to me of the top of my head hearing this story that this gap of time, which is a minimum of 50 days and could be as much closer to two and a half months. Is rather a long one for the victim of this snooping to find, is that, in your estimation, is that what’s going to be critical to this story as we move ahead covering it?

MITCHELL: Absolutely, Keith. I think that there’s no question that any individuals who have had their privacy violated this way, especially such a high-profile person, whether you’re a seating United States senator in the opposition party to say nothing of the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination to be outraged, there are illegal issues here of privacy and there’s security issues.

This is a man under Secret Service protection. So, I think that the Obama campaign and Michelle and Barack Obama personally have a big grievance with people in the State Department. The minute it was discovered, it should have prompted a call, I think, to the highest levels of the State Department management, even from Secretary of State Rice personally to Barack Obama to assure him that this was being investigated.

But if you believe Bill Burton’s statement, with there’s no reason not to, the press spokesman for Barack Obama right now saying that this is the first they’re hearing of it.

OLBERMANN: How many places could this have gotten stuck in the chain of command, Andrea, I mean, just a rough estimate? Is it a couple? Is it dozens? Or with this thing could nobody at a low level have sat on this long enough so that the leaders of the State Department could have only found this out say last week. In other words, is there any chance that this sat unnoticed at the lower levels of the State for a month or more?

MITCHELL: I don’t know how because these people were fired and I just don’t understand, frankly, in any kind have heard this (INAUDIBLE) how this could not have been reported up. This is a bureaucracy. And sure, things can sit on people’s desk, but this is a pretty big deal and I can’t imagine that it wasn’t reported up.

OLBERMANN: Andrea Mitchell who’s providing extraordinary context for us on this story under extraordinary circumstances as it breaks. I’m going to thank you for the moment at least and switch back to Howard Fineman who has a little bit more when the Obama campaign found out about this. Howard?

FINEMAN: Well, I’d just talking to the people out there in Chicago, a few hours ago. It was not the campaign that was informed or indeed Obama himself directly. My understanding is that the State Department official, and I’m not sure who, and I doubt it was Condi Rice, called Obama’s Senate office to inform him on almost a kind of routine bureaucratic way that this breach has occurred.

So, as far as I know, we may learn more later. As far as I know, this was handled at an office to office level, this extraordinary thing. Now, in talking to Obama people a few points, first of all, maybe it goes without saying, but this does not involve Michelle Obama at all, it’s only Barack Obama.

And as the Obama people were pointing out to me, Obama’s passport file is a thick one. Because don’t forget, he spent a lot of his childhood in Indonesia and he traveled with his mother abroad to that part of the world. And also, don’t forget, that early in his campaign, there are all these questions about his childhood, you know, what kind of education he got, where did he studied, what kind of school that attend and so forth.

I wouldn’t doubt that his own mother was the subject of interest to these consular officials in Indonesia. So, who knows how much there is about Obama’s roots and rising in that passport file in the way it’s a key piece of biographical evidence about the citizen of the world as I called him but evidence that is his and his alone, that’s private and not meant to be looked at by other eyes without any reason.

I’m told that Obama as of now, he’s not made a statement. He hasn’t decided yet whether to make one tonight. It sounds to me like as of right now, it’s unlikely that he’ll make a statement, let the campaign speak for him for now. But I wouldn’t be surprised if by tomorrow morning, he doesn’t come out firing on this because as I mentioned, as others have pointed out, this is all too much reminiscent of what happened to Bill Clinton in 1992 with the Bush administration.

OLBERMANN: And you make it an extraordinary point about Obama’s youth and childhood and where it was spent. This is conceivably, we think of Senator Obama perhaps as a public figure since the time of his speech at the Democratic convention in 2004. Those who knew Illinois politics knew him before that into the late 90s.

But we think of him in terms of, you know, that decade in the public spotlight, large or small. This man may have had a passport from the time he was a child. This passport file probably dates back to the 70s and 60s.

FINEMAN: Yes, it does. It dates back to his childhood when he went to Indonesia as I think he was seven years old when he went with his mother. His mother was an aide worker there and an academic and an interesting person who I had contact with the embassy. I think the translation work for the embassy.

If I’m not mistaken, I’m sure that there are things, I’m guessing that there are things in the file about Obama’s family in Indonesia which would have been of interest and remain of interest probably, both to Obama’s friends and enemies. As I said, this is a lot of his life story contained in those passport files.

But as I said also, these are facts for him and him alone and for the government, not to be looked at by others without an extraordinary reason.

OLBERMANN: All right. Let me recap, Howard, so everybody who’s joining us gets the whole picture here, at least as we know it.

Senator Barack Obama’s passport file in the computers of the State Department was breached by those who do not have access to it at some point in January of this year. We don’t have a date. The result of this, according to our reporting at the State Department, two contract employees, apparently people hired to enter data—at least that was their official title—were terminated from their jobs, were fired. A third is disciplined for accessing these records without, quote, a need to do so, according to a State Department source, speaking to our reporting team in off air Washington.

Three people who had access to the passport records of the senator were contract employees of the departments Bureau of Consular Affairs, which, as you may have heard David Shuster reporting earlier this evening, is not very high up on the hierarchy at State. They got caught because, according to this source, a monitoring system was tripped when an employee accessed records of a high profile individual.

When the monitoring system is tripped, we immediately seek an explanation for the record’s access. If the explanation is not satisfactory, the supervisor is notified. And again, at that point, two employees were terminated at some point thereafter, and a third one was suspended, but nobody bothered to informed the Obama campaign, Barack Obama himself, or even Obama’s Senate office until, per Howard Fineman’s reporting, as you heard just a few moments ago, the Senate office of Senator Obama was informed matter of factly by someone of State just a few hours ago.

Our first word about this came officially from the Obama campaign—unofficially from the Obama campaign a little before 8:00 this evening, and then an official statement that came out of Press Secretary Bill Burton, which certainly was not holding back by any stretch of the imagination, that “this is an outrageous breach of security and privacy, even from an administration that’s shown little regard for either over the last eight years. Our government’s duty is to protect the private information of the American people, not use it for political purposes.”

Burton continued, “this is a serious matter that merits a complete investigation. We demand to know who looked at Senator Obama’s passport file, for what purpose and why it took so long for them to reveal this security breach.”

Again, our estimate that under the best of circumstances, if the breach occurred at the very end of January, it happened 50 days ago. Meanwhile, we have this new reporting in from Washington right now: the State Department is organizing a conference call with top department officials in about 40 minutes from now. This was filed at the bottom of the hour.

We’re talking some conference call about ten after 9:00. For now, here is what they are saying: a senior State Department official insists there was no political motivation to these incidents. He says, they were low level contract employees doing administrative work, and they accessed the Obama records out of curiosity. This official does not believe any of this information was sent anywhere. The records were accessed on three different occasions by three separate individuals.

The first two were fired and the last incident is pending. Howard Fineman, we have dates for these now. January 9th was the first of three occasions, then February 21, and the most recent was March 14. That’s last Friday when this occurred. There had already been two incidents and no one told Senator Obama. We’re thinking of this in terms of three guys sitting around a computer. This appears to have been three separate events.

FINEMAN: It’s breathtaking. If I understand that reporting correctly, it sounds like the first two were fired for accessing the records, and then the third person accessed them and was reprimanded. I may have that sequence wrong, but the notion that three different people on three different occasions did that certainly makes you wonder, if no one else learned anything that those three different people learned.

Who were they? Whom did they talk to? What did they find out? What did they pass on? What did they gossip about to whom over drinks, where, with whom? What information were they seeking? To say that it wasn’t political—well, it probably wasn’t ordered by the White House political office, for sure. However people don’t just access somebody’s file. They were fascinated by and intrigued by and maybe worried about the prospects of this rising star, Barack Obama.

On January 9th, the first time someone accessed the file, Obama was rocketing to the top in Iowa and New Hampshire. The second time, he was getting ready to win a whole bunch of primaries or had just won them, as recently as a couple weeks ago. Now, in many polls still, he’s the front-runner for the Democratic nomination with the most delegates, the most popular votes, and the likely Democratic nominee. It’s just absolutely breathtaking.

As I say, the notion that Condi Rice had no idea that this was going on either speaks volumes about her management of the department or makes you wonder who knew what, when?

OLBERMANN: You can expand it a little bit, which is, if something like this can happen to Senator Obama’s passport file, what about Howard Fineman’s? What about mine? What about anybody watching us tonight, where we wouldn’t get notified at all, and somebody just deciding to look these things up. I don’t know, it’s like counting blue cars, as the song went.

Let me give you that time frame again. I’m going to switch over the Andrea Mitchell for a second. January 9th and February 21st; those incidents resulted in the firing of these contract employees at State. March 14th, the individual was disciplined and the entire incident is pending. That person could yet be fired. One would assume that precedent would suggest that person is going to be.

Let me go back to Andrea Mitchell, joining us again by phone. Now we have some time line. Does this clarify, in your mind, what may have happened here and what’s going to happen next?

MITCHELL: I think it makes it even worse, frankly, because it doesn’t indicate that anybody took this seriously enough and that Secretary Rice or anyone else notified Senator Obama or his office in any kind of a timely way. They are saying this was not politically motivated. I’ll be on that conference call. I can assure you that. But how do you ascribe motivation until there’s an investigation and one that’s independent.

There’s no way that you can assure Senator Obama, certainly, or anyone involved in this that there was no political motivation without knowing more about the people involved. Certainly, no one is going to take the State Department’s word for that.

OLBERMANN: Yes, the idea of this being presented not to the Obama campaign, not the senator personally, but in a matter of fact—per Howard Fineman’s reporting on this, a matter of fact phone call from someone in State, not obviously a named individual there, or a name individual there, but just somebody at the office leaving a message almost, this afternoon.

It sounds like, once again, the origins of this may have been, as is surprisingly frequently true in events as galling as this—the origin of it may have been innocent and stupid and moronic and testifying to the idea people have such free access to this. But this time frame, we’re now dating it back to January 9th. That’s what’s going to be the story, of how in the world this could have been kept from Senator Obama or anybody of greater importance in the State Department for more than 48 hours, let alone a period of more than two months.

MITCHELL: Exactly. I have to tell you, you know, Keith, I have been around for a long time, but this is pretty shocking. This is a presidential campaign. This is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. You’re dealing with a Republican administration and you’re dealing with the most sensitive area’s, and as Howard Fineman was correctly pointing out, you’re talking about a nominee who’s rare, in that he lived part of his childhood over seas.

Questions have been raised accurately and inaccurately about his background. There has been a lot of erroneous information on the web about him. This really does rise to a very high level of incompetence, if not political skull-duggery.

OLBERMANN: All right, the next development we know about this—or we’re expecting—is a State Department conference call that should be taking place sometime after 9:00 Eastern. For now, we’ll let Andrea Mitchell go and prepare herself to hear what’s going on with that, with our great thanks. David Shuster has done, as expected, in the interim since we talked to him last, some digging on this, and is back in front of the camera in Washington.

I’ll read the quote to sort of set you up here; “a monitoring system was tripped,” according to our reporting out of State, “when an employee accessed the records of high profile individuals. When the monitoring system is tripped, we immediately seek an explanation of the records access. If the explanation is not satisfactory, the supervisor is notified.”

One has this mental picture of a bell going off somewhere? Is that anywhere near the truth?

SHUSTER: Yes. Keith, I was just speaking with the top investigator for this case when Bill Clinton’s passport was breached back in 1991, and this mechanism of triggering, an electronic triggering mechanism, was actually one of the things that came out of that Bill Clinton investigation, the investigation into George H.W. Bush’s administration, his State Department.

A couple things, Keith; first of all, I don’t have information as far as the reporting requirement. That is, this investigator is not sure if there was some sort of procedure that was set up, as far as when somebody is notified. However, the law is very clear, according to this investigator, that merely looking at this information is a violation of the Privacy Act, which is a misdemeanor. Merely disseminating information to somebody else turns it into a felony, with civil liability and possible criminal liability.

Now, the key questions that we’re going to be asking tonight, Keith, is that what’s supposed to happen is when there’s a breach, the inspector general is supposed to get involved and talk to these employees and find out, why were you doing this? Who asked you to do it, if anybody? What information did you provide to somebody that was essentially private?

The big question now at the State Department is what was the inspector general doing? Did they follow the proper procedures and ask the right questions of these people who were involved? Exactly what did these people tell the inspector general? As Andrea just pointed out, merely the State Department saying there was no political motivation—that may be fine for the State Department to say, but a lot of people tonight are going to want to know from the inspector general himself what did you do? What did you ask? How are you convinced that this was simply not a super-political breach?

The other, Keith, that is worth pointing out is that this inspector said that when it comes to the notification, when there are breaches of your passport information, the State Department has been notoriously slow, notoriously lax over the last 15 years, in terms of not only dealing with employees who are involved in this, but also in terms of notifying people who’s information has been breached and has been violated.

OLBERMANN: So, David, if these internal trigger systems, literally bells and whistles, perhaps, were the result of the special investigation into the 1991-92 investigations involving then candidate, then governor Bill Clinton, by the first Bush administration, those were the internal checks and balances. Was there anything external politically? Is there any kind of threshold for special prosecution or special investigation triggered by this,, anything external to the State?

SHUSTER: Keith, again, that’s where it now belongs to the inspector general. The inspector general at the State Department, like at every agency, is supposed to be essentially independent from the rest of the agency. It would be up to the inspector general, if he thought there was criminality, to refer that to the Justice Department and say, OK—

OLBERMANN: Let me interpret you, David. There it is right now. A senior law enforcement official telling NBC News tonight that he knows of no criminal investigation by the FBI into the unauthorized access by State Department contractors of the Obama passport records.

To continue what we’re reporting out of Washington—this is from Pete Williams, as a matter of fact. Two legal experts say the unauthorized access by itself would be, as David just pointed out, a violation of State Department administrative rules, and would constitute grounds for dismissal, but would not be a criminal violation.

It’s the Privacy Act that’s at issue, per Pete and per these experts that he’s quoting. An unauthorized access would not rise to potential criminal violation unless the information was disseminated, which could be as simple as passing it along to someone else who wasn’t authorized to see. One of Howard Fineman’s points that simply talking about this over cocktails might constitute a violation of the Privacy Act.

To continue Pete Williams’ off-air reporting from Washington, the normal course of events would be for the State Department to refer any potential criminal violation to the Justice Department, but officials say tonight they know of no such referral. And given the State Department’s explanation so far that this was mere nosiness, there would seem, at first glance, to be no grounds for criminal charges.

Again, David, that would be a kind of throw back in the face of Bill Burton, whose statement on this on behalf of the Obama campaign is the only thing we have on this officially. We demand to know who looked at Senator Obama’s passport file, for what purpose, and why it took so long for them to reveal the security breach.

In terms of criminal prosecution, there doesn’t seem to be one from Pete’s point of view, Pete Williams at Justice, who knows this stuff backwards and forwards. I’m wondering, knowing the mechanics of Washington and politics, this is an electronic invasion of a presidential campaign. We have not seen the likes of this probably since that Clinton passport check of 1991-92.

For all we know, this could eventually blow up to the levels of parts of the Watergate investigation of ‘72, ‘73, ‘74. How quickly could something move politically on this? Is this likely to be brought up in the Congress, either in the House or the Senate at any point in the immediate future, in time to make a difference for this election?

SHUSTER: The person that everybody tonight in Washington is going to be perhaps asking questions of, or at least waiting to hear from, is going to this inspector general at the State Department, whose job it is to make the call about whether to make a criminal referral to the Justice Department, to the FBI, for an investigation.

What we’re learning, based on Pete’s note and based on how the State Department in these matters work, is that, for whatever reason, the inspector general at the State Department, whose name escapes me at the moment—but the inspector general decided that this was not worth a criminal referral. He was satisfied with the interviews he did with these contract employees, that it was either innocent or they were just fishing and that they did not disseminate the information.

How he made that judgment, how that inspector general decided, OK, they got the information but they didn’t give it to anybody, over cocktails or anywhere else, that’s now the responsibility of the inspector general to explain not just to Barack Obama, but to all the reporters who are going to be on this conference call in 15 minutes.

I mean, it’s the inspector general’s decision to make. Again, the question now belongs to him: what convinced you that this was simply just fishing around and this innocent? And what steps did you take to assure yourself and to assure the State Department that this wasn’t some sort of political dirty tricks, and that this information was not disseminated.

Again, once it is disseminated, once that information is shared, it does become a possible criminal violation worthy of a referral to the Justice Department for an investigation.

OLBERMANN: Never mind being worthy to the criminal investigation out of Justice; it wasn’t apparently worthy of a phone call to Senator Obama, even though this first incident was dated January 9th.

We’ve been quoting the off-air works Pete Williams, our chief Justice correspondent. Pete is now on the phone with us too. I’d love for you to flush this out. Do you have any indication—we’ve reported what you reported already, but do you have any indication what led them to believe so quickly that this was innocent curiosity, and did not merit not just referral to Justice, but merit notifying the person whose file was snooped into.

PETE WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT: That part I can’t tell you, why they didn’t tell Senator Obama. I don’t know what the normal procedures are for doing that. Set Senator Obama aside, if your, Keith Olbermann’s, records are improperly accessed—I would be sort of surprised if the government had a procedure for telling every American when some snoop was poking into their records, because I think they would be fairly busy.

But what I’m told is that there is no criminal investigation here. One of the people I asked about the law here is Joe DiGenova, who was the independent council who investigated the Clinton passport case, and concluded that there was no criminal violations there. He and other criminal authorities agree that the test is—it’s the Privacy Act that’s implicated. The test is: was it mere snoopiness, which is not a criminal violation. It’s an administrative violation. It breaks the rules. You can be fired. You can be sanctioned.

If you pass it on to someone else, that’s where the potential criminal violation comes in. I guess everyone is satisfied, at the point we have to keep saying. We’re just getting into this tonight. At this point, there doesn’t seem to be any indication that this was anything more than what one might call prurient interests, just their own nosiness, to look at his records.

We don’t know precisely how they reached that conclusion. Now to get around to finally answer your questions. We have to assume it’s based on their interviews with the people who did it. They seem to think that they were just nosey and just dying to know what famous people were doing. Apparently, one had the same birth date as Senator Obama. They thought that would be fascinating to know what someone with the same birth date, his travel records were. It’s all the wrong thing to do, but at this point, there is no indication it was passed on to anyone else, so far.

OLBERMANN: One note to David Shuster’s reporting when he was talking about not being able to pull off the top of his head the name of the inspector general at the Department of State. There’s a reason for that. This testifies to David Shuster’s various expertise. The Office of the Inspector General at the Department of State is currently vacant. There is a deputy inspector general, Mr. Todd, but there is no inspector general in office at the moment.

WILLIAMS: There’s still somebody—

OLBERMANN: There’s somebody to do it. But that’s why David couldn’t come up with the name. Let me ask you, Pete Williams, this one question that occurred to me in your explanation as to what they probably found, at least what sort of structure would have led the people in the State Department to suggest that was not worthy of a criminal referral to the Justice Department. Are there additional rules about reporting this upwards through the chain of command in State? Is there a possibility of something along that lines being a violation?

WILLIAMS: I think the way it works is—I don’t know if these systems—my guess, quite frankly, would be that these systems were put in place after the embarrassment of the Clinton unauthorized passport disclosure stuff when he was running for president the first time.

The way it’s supposed to work is it’s a computer system. There are certain people it’s looking out for, I guess, a list of famous, high profile people, and if someone improperly accesses those, a computer record is made of that. Then the supervisor of the contract employees is notified. The supervisor then says why were you doing that. If the supervisor is not satisfied—maybe I should put it this way, if the supervisor is satisfied that the reason is not a good one, not a legitimate government reason, then they begin to take steps to sanction the employee.

How high up it gets reported, I don’t know. With a candidate that’s running for president, you would assume that senior State Department people would know about this.

OLBERMANN: Especially given the time line that we now know of. The Associate Press is now quoting spokesman Sean McCormack, who will be on this State Department conference call a little after 9:00 Eastern, quoting him as saying that this was the result of imprudent curiosity by State Department employees, but he’s confirming these dates, January 9th, February 21st, and again last Friday, March 14th.

Certainly, you would think that after that second separate incident on February 21, where somebody else just happened to look in Obama’s passport file, that somebody in the State Department, even somebody at the low level of the consular agency, would have said, there’s something wrong here. We need to get at least our people at the higher levels, at the political levels of the State Department informed on this. It must have been knowledge within state within the last month. Must if have not?

WILLIAMS: You would sure assume so, but government seldom works the way it should.

OLBERMANN: Pete Williams doing some yeoman work after hours for us in Washington. We thank you greatly, Pete.

WILLIAMS: My pleasure.

OLBERMANN: Let’s recap what we have so far. The confirmation is in and there’s a conference call scheduled for sometime after 9:00 Eastern by the U.S. Department of State. Two contract employees have been fired, a third was disciplined and the case is still open. There may yet be further discipline against that individual for inappropriately looking at the passport file of Senator Barack Obama.

The spokesman for the State Department, Sean McCormack, has confirmed that there was imprudent curiosity by State Department employees and has confirmed our earlier reporting, that these were three separate incidents, on January 9th, the first one, February 22st, and March 14th.

The Obama family, the Obama Senate office and the Obama presidential campaign found out about all this today, that according to Howard Fineman’s writing and reporting. This was referred to Obama’s Senate office today by some functionary within the State Department. This was not Secretary of State Rice calling Obama or even one of the undersecretaries calling Senator Obama, and saying, yes, by the way, somebody has been looking. We think it’s pretty innocent, but it’s happened three times. We thought we had better had let you know.

Nobody said a word to him until this day. We’re reporting out of Washington that these were two contract employees. In other words, as a spokesman said, people who were hired, who had access to the passport records of Senator Obama, were contract employees of the Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs. They were caught when a monitoring system was tripped when an employee accessed the records of a high profile individual, in this case Senator Obama.

The monitoring system is tripped, and therefore, at that point, State immediately seeks an explanation for the records accessed. If the explanation is not satisfactory, the supervisor is notified. You may have heard David Shuster reporting before that this entire sounding like a Rube Goldbergian kind of methodology for alerting when the computer records have been viewed by people who shouldn’t have viewed them, was put into place after the incident in ‘91 and ‘92 when the Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Clinton, then the governor of Arkansas, had his passport records examined improperly within the State Department.

Again, the complaint from the Obama campaign became public a little bit before 8:00 p.m. Eastern this evening and became official in a statement from Bill Burton, the press secretary, that “this is an outrageous breach of security and privacy, even from an administration that’s showed little regard for either over the last eight years. Our government’s duty is to protect the private information of the American people, not use it for political purposes. This is a serious matter that merits a complete investigation. We demand to know who looked at Senator Obama’s passport file, for what purpose, and why it took so long for them to reveal this security breach.”

That again Bill Burton, the press secretary to Senator Obama.

We are joined on the phone by the co-chair of the Obama campaign, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder, thanks for your time tonight.

ERIC HOLDER, OBAMA CAMPAIGN CO-CHAIR: Thanks, good to speak to you.

OLBERMANN: What can you add to this? Is this in fact true, that your candidate, the senator, did not hear anything about this until earlier this evening, late this afternoon?

HOLDER: Yes. We only heard about it today. I have to tell you, Keith, this is very disturbing. When you have—if you had one incident of somebody looking into the files, you could say, perhaps it’s just somebody snooping around inappropriately. But when you have three separate incidents, one as recently, I guess, as last week some time, I begin to wonder, as a former prosecutor, whether or not we have a pattern here.

I want to know exactly who knew about this in the State Department, who made the determination that this should not be referred to the Justice Department? I think there’s a lot of questions that need to be answered here. I’m very disturbed by this.

OLBERMANN: As we suggested, this runs the whole—the potentialities here run the whole gamut. This could be literally what it’s being described as by the State Department, which a couple of guys who have access to computer records and one of them, supposedly, had the same birth date as the senator and wanted to go look and see where he had been. It could be something as innocent as that, or it could be the wildest conspiracy that either one of us could put together.

But the real point seems to be that if the State Department is tonight confirming that the first incident occurred on January 9th, and they didn’t tell you until today, March 20, there seems to have been a long period of time. There’s a gap in there of more than 70 days. Is that what has alarmed you, as much as the fact of the stealing of the information, the looking into this private record?

HOLDER: There’s a whole host of things that I think are disturbing here. The fact that it is three separate incidents, one per month, over the course of three months, and the fact that one happened I guess over two months ago and this is the first time that somebody whose privacy has been violated, perhaps in a criminal way, is being notified about it. There’s at least, it seems to me, some administrative bungling here and perhaps, at worst, something that needs to be looked at by the Justice Department.

There’s a whole bunch of questions here that I have, as I said before, that are extremely disturbing to me.

OLBERMANN: Have you been in touch with the senator, Mr. Holder? Does he have a specific reaction to this?

HOLDER: No, I have not spoken to Senator Obama about this.

OLBERMANN: The idea, again, that this went on as long as it did and then it was—your campaign, again, let me backtrack here. Give me some sort of confirmation; how did the campaign, how did the senator and how did his office find out about this? What was—the story that we are hearing is it went State Department to—not even a major figure in the State Department, but somebody from the department to the senators Senate office in Washington. Is that correct?

HOLDER: I cannot confirm that. I have only spoken to people here very generally and that is my understanding about how the information was passed to us. I don’t know for sure though how the information was conveyed to Senator Obama or the people around Senator Obama.

OLBERMANN: What, Mr. Holder, is the next step, from your point of view?

HOLDER: I think the question—I would like to see what the State Department will say about what they have done, in terms of investigating this. I would like to hear from the person who I guess is the acting inspector general, how they made the determination that this was not something to be referred to the Justice Department, especially given the fact that when something similar happened in the early ‘90s, an independent council was actually appointed, Joe DiGenova, a very accomplished lawyer in Washington, DC, was appointed to look into that.

Given that background, and, again, this pattern that I see here, this determination relatively quickly, it seems to me, to make the decision not to refer this to the Justice Department. I’d like to have a very good explanation of why that determination was made.

OLBERMANN: I think many in the news organizations of this country would probably ask the same question and share your opinion. I’m sure you’ll be interested by a statement from Howard Wolfson from the Clinton campaign to Howard Fineman, reporting for us and obviously “Newsweek;” “if it’s true, it’s outrageous.” I think that pretty much sums it up. Does it not?

HOLDER: On this one, I can finally agree with Howard Wolfson.

OLBERMANN: Eric Holder, co-chair of the Obama campaign, giving us what he knows of this breaking situation that’s taken over the air waves for the last hour. Mr. Holder, great thanks to you.

HOLDER: Thank you.

OLBERMANN: As we approach 9:00, let me wrap up everything that we have in front of us right now. It’s a considerable amount of information. The State Department is confirming tonight that on three occasions since January, January 9th, February 21st, March 14th, last Friday, apparently non-staff employees of the State Department, contracted employees, people perhaps down as low as the level of having been hired to enter data, accessed improperly the personal passport file of Senator Barack Obama, who has had a passport since he was a child in the 1960s and 1970s, having done a considerable amount of travel at that time, as a kid, living for a while in Indonesia.

State Department confirm that two of these employees, in the incidents on January 9th and February 21st, had already been dismissed, that the third incident, which occurred only last Friday, is still under investigation. That individual has been reprimanded at this point.

All this came to light when these three people who had access to passport records of Senator Obama—were contract employees who had this access. A monitoring system was tripped when an employee accessed the records of a high-profile individual, in this case Senator Obama. The monitoring system is tripped, a monitoring system that we have again reported to you tonight was installed in 1992 after a similar incident with then Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Clinton.

The system was tripped and the State Department immediately seeks an explanation for the records access. And if the explanation is not satisfactory, the supervisor is notified. Just how immediately seems to be the number one issue right now. The first instance of this occurred about 70 days ago, on January 9th. Then somebody else accessed Senator Obama’s record on February 21st. Then it happened again on March 14th.

Late this afternoon, per the reporting of Howard Fineman, and per Eric Holder, co-chair of the Obama campaign committee, this afternoon, Senator Obama’s office—was of his offices was informed by somebody at some lower level of the State Department. Pete Williams reporting out of Washington that State has determined that there’s no need for criminal investigation. I suspect that the Justice Department will be the only one thing in the United States that could possibly investigating this extraordinary story, that will not be investigating in the next few days.

That is a special edition of COUNTDOWN. We thank you for being with us. Good night and good luck.