in atlantic city. >> i can see you fist pump inning atlantic city with the guy from "jersey shore." up next, "hardball" with chris matthews. freddie and friend. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews up in new york. leading off tonight, newt and the "l" word, lobbyist. donald trump, michele bachmann, rick perry, herman cain. each has had his or her chance as the gop flavor of the month. now, here comes newt gingrich. today we learned from bloomberg news that gingrich was paid up to $1.8 million by freddie mac, that quasi-government mortgage company newt himself loves to trash. hired freddie mac officials say

to build bridges of love to republicans bent on destroying freddie. in other words, to lobby. welcome to front-runner status, newt. you've been caught. plus, how many blunders can one party take, from rick perry's oops to herman cain's ó0@&h(lc% head-scratching on libya, to michele bachmann on, well, almost everything? looking foolish has become the dress code in this republican race, and what does that say about a party that most resembles now a clown car from the best days of barnum & bailey. also penn state, what happened when mike mcqueary allegedly saw jerry sandusky molesting a -- violating a child? he says he left immediately, and now he says he stopped it and called police. if his credibility is questioned, how will that affect the prosecution? it's clear the republicans can't touch president obama on foreign policy, so the new shiny object is iran, and it's nuclear ambitions. some want to bomb iran, but have they even thought what the consequences would be?

finally, which republican candidate said in new hampshire he doesn't care what the rest of the country thinks or fears? that's in the sideshow. we start with newt gingrich. joan wall somebody editor at large for salon.com and david corn is from "mother jones" and an msnbc political analyst. one of the more ridiculous answers at last week's cnbc republican debate. asked about his ties to freddie mac, newt gingrich said they paid him to offer advice as, quote, an historian. let's watch. >> i offered advice, and my advice as an historian when they walked in and said to me we are now making loans to people with no credit history and have no record of paying back anything, but that's what the government wants us to do, i said to them at the time, this is a bubble. this is insane. this is impossible. >> well, it seems like to pay those tiffany bills he's been busy out there for freddie mac. today bloomberg reported that freddie mac executives dispute gingrich's assertion that he warned them about the bubble ç

coming. according to bloomberg, quote, none of the former freddie mac officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity said gingrich even raised the issue s criticf business model. what was gingrich paid to do? according to two former executives, quote, gingrich was asked to build bridges to capitol hill republicans and develop an argument on behalf of the company's public/private structure that would resonate with conservatives seeking to dismantle it. he was expected to provide written material that could be circulated among free market conservatives in congress and in outside organizations. well, the price tag for his services, according to bloomberg was between $1.6 million and $1.8 million over an eight-year span. joan, it seems to me that he's doing what all big shots get paid to do. they get paid to sit in law firms or sit in consulting firms or pr firms, whatever they are called at the time, to basically oversee a lobbying campaign. they are the ones that send the little pawns up on capitol hill to make the contacts. they are the ones that know where the action is, know it will sell and write the talking

points. is a they are, in fact, running the lobbying campaign. >> well, right, and i think he's trying to make a distinction that lobbying really means just going and talking yourself, buttonholing a legislator, trading on your connections with your individual congress people but that's really not the whole story, and in fact what he did was trade on his relationships and trade on his status at a great free market person, which he's not, to create these talking points and to create this campaign to say hands off freddie, and i think it's a ridiculous distinction to say that's not lobbying. today i believe he told a reporter it was strategic advice. >> right. >> strategic device from an historian. thanks, newt.ç what's next? >> he's got to be houdini to get out of this one. he may be houdini here. congressman barney frank, one of my favorites, appeared on martin bashir's show this afternoon, who said gingrich was a lobbyist. he said a lot worse. let's listen to barney frank.

>> two "l" words, lobbyist and liar, newt gingrich was reprimanded by the house of representatives for lying and he has a history of doing that. this is nonsense he was being paid $1.6 million, maybe more, to talk about history, to talk about the transcontinental railroads. he was clearly there as a lobbyist. he kind of slipped and acknowledged that when he said to justify that large amount of money, after all, i'd been speaker of the house. you don't enhance your academic credentials by having been speaker. what you enhance is your value as a lobbyist. >> i was just thinking, if you work for freddie mac, you must be having a hard time. who should we hire, michael beshlash, david mccullough, what about our house historian on housing? clearly he's the lobbyist in chief. let me ask you this. >> yeah. >> here's a guy, and here's where it's really evil. i don't want to overstate that until we get to the bottom of this. i think it's like that. here's a guy who made a lot of points the last couple of months blasting the democrats, dodd and

frank, saying they both ought to be in prison, basically. in fact, he said that. >> yeah. >> for basically coddling freddie mac. now it turns out he's their chief lobbyist. how can you be that dishonest? >> chris, you've been around the block a few times. this is 100% newt gingrich. this is his pattern. you come up with a slippery denial about your own behavior while you throw bombs at the other side. even for doing what you yourself have done. just go back to the clinton impeachment crusade. i mean, it's one of the biggest dodges in town to say i'm not a lobbyist. >> you mean carrying on an affair with somebody who works in the house staff below you at the same time you're going after a president for doing something like that in the white house? >> yeah, that comes to mind. >> yeah. >> so he's a serial fibber, and you saw that when he said i was an historian. that is patently absurd. the fact that we even have to parse or analyze that remark for more than a nanosecond shows our political culture is a little bit askew.

he should be laughed out of town. >> okay. >> as he should have been laughed out of town many times in the past few decades. >> let's catch some of his history, we could all be historians on newt. we all remember this. 2008 on "the o'reilly factor" talking about the housing market. he's indicting the democrats for doing what it turns out he was doing himself, looking out for freddie mac's interests. here he is. >> yeah. >> what you have today is that the rich in wall street and the powerful of fannie mae and freddie mac had so many politicians beholden to them, that in fact nobody was going to check them, and so they got away with things that were absolute baloney, and it's a tragedy. >> he's not a human being. he's a gaseous state, isn't he? this is like a gaseous state around the world. i mean, this is newtism. how can you accuse the democrats of the very thing you were paid a couple million bucks to do which is look out for freddie mac? >> i mean, literally, literally listening to that. there's also the clip, i think it was in an october 11 debate, where he actually said who

should go to jail. barney frank should go to jail, and democrats and their relationship with freddie mac, that he can say that knowing that he's taken money, almost $2 million, from freddie mac. i mean, honestly, david, i agreç with you. we should have seen this coming, but i find this shocking, and i didn't think i was capable of being shocked by newt. >> i think it's pathological. i mean, i know that's a big word and i'm not trying to hype it here, but you can go through 30 years of his statements and actually we did that at "mother jones" a couple weeks ago. i should put that story back up again on the home page. >> right. >> but you can find examples of this again and again and again. it's not a slipup. this is an m.o., his modus operandi for newt gingrich. i called someone at freddie mac, when the story line first came out, and the guy just started laughing at me. he goes why do you guys even believe or talk about it for a moment? he was paid the same way we paid all politicians, to be in our pocket and make us look good,

very simple. >> i think you were very excellent there in ripping the scab off the reprimand at one branch of government for speaker of the house, and i think he does pretend to be a candidate for the head of the executive branch. how can you go from big kicked off one branch and grabbing on to the other? i don't get it, but i want to remind to something, worse than all the flip-flops, let me get to something that's classic newt. remember, joan, when he blamed the democrats for susan smith's killing of her kids? >> yes. >> return to that day. what does that tell you about a politician? he's not a normal politician who does that stuff? >> no, it was just -- it was abominable, unbelievable. this woman, obviously disturbed, first, she lied and said a black man carjacked her and killed her kids. then it was found that she did it herself, and newt said, he literally said, it was on the eve of the '94 mid terms, that the only way to stop behavior like this was to vote % republican.

he said the democrats had created this culture of corruption and law-breaking and families disintegrating, and reporters came back to him and said is that what you're saying? are you really saying republicans can stop that? he said absolutely. >> right. >> so this is, again, the kind of projection. >> with that light motif, with that background, watch this little bit of tape here on his flip-flops. let's watch newt, not just flip flops but really his dishonesty. here he is. >> i believe all of us, and this is going to be a big debate, i believe all of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care. i think the idea -- >> you agree with mitt romney on this point? >> i agree all of us have a responsibility to pay for health care, and i think there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. i've said consistently we ought to have some requirements, ought to have health insurance or post a bond or some way you indicate you will be held accountable.

>> it's the individual mandate? >> that's a variation on it. >> i'm completely opposed to the obamacare mandate for the and oppose any effort to impose an individual mandate because it's fundamentally wrong, and i believe unconstitutional. >> what would you do about libya >> exercise a no-fly zone this es evening. the idea that we're confused about a man who has been an anti-american dictator since

close personal friend, and i said that. the fact is that i have supported what ryan is trying to do in the budget. any ad which quotes what i said on sunday is a falsehood because i've said publicly those words were inaccurate and unfortunate. >> david, what we're watching here is not someone who changes his mind, but we're watching a whirling dervish of a dishonesty. he spins and spins and spins depending on the circumstance and the moment and grabs what he thinks is the higher ground in that moment, and he doesn't tell the truth about what he thinks because it's the same person claiming to think two different things in the same moment. how can you believe a word this guy says as he runs for president? >> chris, i think, you know, i've been in town almost as long as you have. if he had to name the most situational politician we've ever covered, newt would certainly be at the top of that list. he's not -- you're right. he's not a flip-flopper. he is a gyrator. following him gets you dizzy.

you know, the word spin, you know, in the dictionary, he should be next to it because he never ever stops. he likes to position himself or depict himself as a grand big thinker, of noble grand big thoughts, but if you actually compare one to the next over the years, you see there's no consistency, and -- and inside it's like hollowness. it's really whatever is going to give him that edge at the moment, the advantage. that's what he goes for, and it doesn't matter what he said ten seconds earlier. >> joan, last thought? >> well, i think this will really sio[ him because he and republicans have succeeded in demonizing freddie mac and making freddie mac into an agent of socialism, so the idea that he took almost $2 million from freddie mac, he's a liar. he's a hypocrite, and i think he's done with the tea party. >> yeah. join the powers that are attacking freddie mac and get paid to defend them. what a brilliant washington game, and now he's been caught the price of front-runnership, newt. >> exactly. >> thank you joan walsh. had to have you two here.

i think it's so great. you two are the best at understanding washington. thank you david corn and joan. coming up, from herman cain's brain freeze, that's a nice word for it, to rick perry's oops last week, to michele bachmann on just about everything she tries to handle, how many blunders can a political party stand and still stand up? and how damaging to the republican brand name are endless gaffes on everything from the important to the hopeless? you're watching "hardball," only on msnbc. ♪ [ female announcer ] give a little cheer to a family of a soldier. just cut out the cheer from your specially marked box of cheerios, write your message, and we'll see that they get it.

we just told you that newt gingrich received money. now he's getting criticized by none other than jack abramoff. he told nbc's david gregory he doesn't think he can survive the news. >> i don't think in a he'll be able to survive this. >> why?

>> he's engaged in the exact kind of corruption that america disdains, the very things that anger the tea party movement and the occupy wall street movement and everybody who is not in a movement and watches washington and says why are these guys getting all this money? why are they so rich? why do they have they advantages? >> you call that corruption, though. >> indeed. >> that's a heavy charge. >> what is it? it is corruption. >> that's jack abramoff calls newt gingrich corrupt. we'll be right back.

welcome back to "hardball." republican candidates have been the butt of many jokes this year because of the long list of gaffes and awkward moments from the campaign trail. in an article in today's "new york times" entitled "flubs are rubbing some republicans the wrong way" it quotes many ç republicans who aren't laughing about the multiple missteps and some republicans are asking whether the gaffes may be damaging the republican brand itself. ed rendell is the former

democratic governor of pennsylvania and msnbc analyst, and john feehery is a republican strategist. gentlemen, i have to ask you. it used to be that the republicans were the daddy party, if you will, the ones we're going to take care of all the dangers facing the country. we're the experts on foreign policy. don't get in our way, democrats, and now it seems like they are just dicey on the subject. they don't seem to have any expert on foreign policy in the entire list of republicans running. >> it's true, chris. if i were an independent voter or a moderate republican, my head is spinning, and i'm thinking what in god's name is this party up to? is this the best they have got? but, again, what happens once there's a nominee is people focus not so much on republican and democrat, they focus on the republican nominee versus the president so they will have a time to recoup. what i think the big problem is, let's assume for a second, chris, put yourself in mitt romney's place. you're the nominee going into the convention, what do you do with these wackos at the convention?

what do you do with them? >> what raw meat can you throw their way to make you think you're one of them? >> right. how do you put herman cain and rick perry and michele bachmann on the speaking program and hope to win the philadelphia suburbs? >> remember how they used to bring all the other candidates up on the stage after you get the nomination. >> if i were mitt romney. >> can you imagine this motley crue? feehery, even you are laughing. would you bring sarah palin up on the stage? would you bring michele bachmann and the whole gang of them up on the stage and say here are my rivals, my excellent colleagues. here they are together to show you our intellectual force. would you do that, john, or keep them in the closet? >> of course i'd bring them up ç and strategically place them throughout the program so they would make the maximum amount of news i wanted them to make at the time. you do that at any convention to unify the party, and, you know, they speak -- the candidates running for president speak for a lot of different constituencies within the republican party. i would say to the "new york times" piece, it's not the gaffes of a few that define a party.

it's the philosophy of many, and the republican party is by and large a conservative party, and we live in a conservative country, and i tell you, when it comes to where most people are on foreign policy, most of the country is far more conservative from a foreign policy standpoint than anybody in washington, in either the democratic or republican party. >> bush had a better record of catching bin laden than obama does, right? >> chris, it's even worse than that. >> well, wait, wait, wait. this election is not going to be about osama bin laden. >> it's not about terrorism, not about 9/11 anymore. oh, i've got it. >> this election is about the economy. >> i've forgotten we don't care about this. governor, i want you to look at this so we can actually show the problem area for mr. feehery. a national security official under george w. bush told the "times," this is the core of the republican brand. you mess with it at your peril. it cuts directly to the essence of the brand republicans should be concerned about this. you don't agree, john, right? >> well, listen, what i think is

that, mitt romney or whoever the nominee is going to have the foreign policy establishment, the republican foreign policy establishment behind them, and they are going to support each other, and i think that at the end of the day that brand on foreign policy is going to be just fine. >> you know, the other day, governor, herman cain of all people went up to see apparently henry kissinger. doesn't that show you the gap iç what they were and what they are? >> it's enormous. >> and it's a hoot. the idea of those two people taking up the same office space is unimaginable. your thoughts, governor? >> and the weakness in john's position is these are the people running for president in the republican party. they are not just some local mayor or some county commissioner or congressman here and there. these are the supposedly the best and the brightest. if i'm in the philadelphia suburbs and i'm a moderate republican, my head is spinning. i'm saying this can't be true. this guy doesn't know about libya. this guy can't remember the departments he wants to get rid of. this guy wants to bomb iran

after all we've been through. >> here we go, governor. by the way, even when you the mayor of our great city you read the newspapers. let's listen to some of the more notable blunders by some of the republican candidates as they have gone into the dangerous areas of american history and politics. >> we know there was slavery that was still tolerated when the nation began. we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the united states. men like john quincy adams who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country. >> would you describe yourself as a neo-conservative then? >> i'm not sure what you mean by neo-conservative. i'm a conservative yes. neo-conservative, labels sometimes will put you in a box. >> you're familiar with the neo-conservative movement? >> i'm familiar with the -- i'm not familiar with the neoconservative movement. i'm familiar with the conservative movement.

>> we've gone from a country that's made great strides in issues of civil rights. i think we all can be proud of ç that, and as we go forward, america needs to be about freedom. it needs to be freedom from overtaxation and overlitigation and freedom from over-regulation. >> well, i have to tell you, john feehery, i've got to give you a shot at this. john quincy adams was 6 years old at the writing of the declaration of the founding documents. he was a brilliant kid, isn't he? fighting slavery at the age of 6. what is she talking about? the one thing if you're a philly kid, governor, you know this, you can't way to go down to mt. vernon and see the slave quarters, this is where they

a lot of analysts looking at that move and saying it is meant to serve really as a counter weight to china, which is emerging as a major power in the region. in fact, one chinese official said he thought the move was inappropriate. now, obama administration officials have pushed back on that and say the move is completely appropriate. they underscore the fact ta australia is one of america's closest allies and president obama i believe coming out to

speak right now. let's take a listen to what he has to say. >> hello, everybody. how are you? doing? well, i know that you all have a great australian cheer. i want to hear it. so let me say first it, awesomie awesomie awesomie. i enjoyed that. it is great to be here at roth darwin -- i mean darwin. i'm learning to speak. the prime minister said sheç wanted to show me australia at its best and she's right, you are all true blue. so thank you, julia, for bringing us together today, for bringing such a great friend and champion of our alliance and for this visit to australia, which i will remember forever.

now, it is good to be here in the top end. i thank the people of darwin for the incredibly warm welcome, and i'm proud to be the first u.s. president ever to visit the northern territory. i want to begin by respectfully acknowledging the traditional owners of this land and their elders past and present. you are one of the world's oldest continuous cultures and i want you to know that your strength, your dignity is an inspiration to me and people all around the world. i'm not going to give a big speech. it's a little hot. i already gave a big speech. what i really want to do is spend a little time shaking some hands. . i'm not sure i'm going to be able to reach all the way back

there. as the prime minister i were said, we're celebrating the 60th anniversary of our great alliance. and we couldn't think of a better group to do it with than you. all of you are the backbone of our alliance. it's an honor to be here with australia's legendary diggers. you are some of the toughest warriors in the world. and so are another group of folks here today, our extraordinary united states marines.ç aussies and americans like you have stood together since world war i, the war in which so much of your national character was born. your incredible spirit, but in a sense, it was here in darwin where our alliance was born.

during australia's pearl harbor. against overwhelming odds, our forces fought back with honor and with courage. the prime minister and i just paid our respects at the memorial to one of the ships lost that day, the "uss perry" and we looked out at those beautiful blue waters where so many australians and americans rest, where they fell together. the days after darwin were tough. some thought australia might fall. but we dusted ourselves off, we picked ourselves up, we rebuilt, and thanks to the extraordinary generation of troops, we went on to victory in the coral sea and add midway and at miln bay. and when that war was won, and as another raged in korea, our

countries forged a new alliance. we pledged our collective defense for the preservation of peace and security. and that's a promise we've kept ever since. as i said in parliament earlier today, our alliance is rooted in the bondsç between our people d the democratic values that we share and our commitment to stand with each other through thick and through thin, no matter what. and that includes afghanistan. i know many of you served there, including proud members of the 1st brigade like generations before you, you've lived and served alongside your american colleagues day in and day out, and you worked together so well, it's often said you can't tell where our guys end and you guys begin. today i want to say thank you, thank you for a job well done.

thank you for your incredible sacrifices. thank you for your family's sacrifices, and welcome home. [ applause ] others among you served in iraq, and on dangerous missions around the globe. among us today are families whose loved ones made the ultimate sacrifice in today's wars. and this morning, the prime minister and i paid our respects at the australian war memorial, and in that magnificent space, i saw the roll of honor with the names of your fallen heroes, including those from afghanistan. and to their families, i say no words are sufficient for the depth of your sacrifice. but we will honor your loved

ones by completing their mission, by making sure afghanistan is never again used toç attack our people. and i am confident that we are going to succeed. now, here in darwin and northern australia, we'll write the next proud chapter in our alliance because the prime minister and i announced yesterday some of our marines will begin rotating through these parts to train and exercise with you and to work as partners across the region for the security we all want. today, on behalf of the american people, i want to thank the people of this community for welcoming our men and women in uniform. we are grateful for your friendship, and we are grateful for your hospitality. so we're deepening our alliance, and this is the perfect place to do it. i know the training conditions around here are tough, at least

that's what i've heard. big open spaces, harsh weather, bazis, snakes, crocs. in fact, i was just presented with the most unique gift i've ever received as president, crocodile insurance. my wife, michele, will be relieved. i have to admit that when we reformed health care in america, crocodile insurance is one thing we left out. but there's another reason we're deepening our alliance here. this region has some of the busiest sea lanes in the world, which are critical to all our economies. and in times of crisis, from the bali bombings to east timor to relief after a tsunami, darwin has been a hub moving out aid,

caring for victims, making sure that we do right by the people of this region. and that's what we're going to keep doing together. going forward, our purpose is the same as it was 60 years ago. the preservation of peace and security. and in a larger sense, you're answering the question once posed by the great banjo patterson of australia, he wrote, hath she the strength for the burden laid upon her, hath she the power to protect and guard her own? well, generations of australians and you, its men and women in uniform, have given your answer, and america has been honored to stand with you as allies with an enduring commitment to human freedom. on this 60th anniversary, we are

saying together, proudly, yes, we have the strength for the burden laid upon us and we have the power to protect and guard our own here in the asia-pacific and all around the world. so thank you all for your extraordinary service. and thank you for representing the very best of our two countries. god bless australia. god bless america. and god bless the great alliance between our two peoples. thank you very much. [ applause ] insulate all right.ç president obama speaking in darwin, australia, addressing both u.s. marines as well as australian troops there at the royal army air force base, stressing peace and security and the strong relationship over the decades with the country of australia. you can see it on the right-hand side, prime minister julia

belard expressing the very same warmth. kristen welker is there with the president listening to the very same speech with us. the important point when we look at this speech as you've been following the president here, kristin, is this important relationship that the united states has had and continues to have with australia in the balance of power in the austra asia region, used very commonly there in the region showing how close australia really is to many of the asia-pacific countries where there are some security concerns. >> reporter: that's absolutely right. and richard, in this speech, you really heard him hone in and focus on the strong alliance the united states has had with australia really throughout time when it comes to military issues. of course, he is here also marking the 60th anniversary of the military alliance between the united states and australia. the two corrupts have fought

together in every major war since world war i. that was a major theme in his speech as was the shift we've been talking about in foreign policy for the united states away from the wars in iraq and afghanistan and towards the asia-pacific region. the president saying haing this region is key to the future both economically and in terms of security issues. so you really heard him hone in on that during his comments just a short time çago. you also heard him at the top of his remarks try to use some australia dialect. we have really seen that throughout the past two days, trying to really reach out to the people here in australia. you know, richard, this is a nine-day trip that the president is taking. the entire focus of this trip has really been on expanding relations between the united states and the asia-pacific region. we started out at the a apec summit and during that summit, the president and eight other world leaders really mapped out the broad foundation for what

they are hoping will be a new and significant trade deal, that they're hoping to get passed by next year. so the themes of this trip, expanding the ties between the united states and the asia-pacific region on a number of different fronts, and we certainly saw that play out here in his remarks. and one light note. i just want to bring up. you heard the president talk about crocodile insurance. one insurance company here in the region gave that to him as a gift. and by the way, i looked this up, richard. two people are killed in australia every year by crocodiles. >> that's -- >> president's certainly probably happy to receive that. >> that is sad to hear. i think there are more crocodiles in darwin, australia, than there are actually people. there are 150,000 people in the northern territories there in darwin. let's finish this off as he mov- you underlined some of the key themes here as he does go through the asia-pacific region both on economic, the political,

as well as the security areas. what is the next stop for him? >> reporter: next stop will be bali, indonesia, and he will participate in what's known as the east asian summit, the first timeç that the u.s. president will participate in that summit. so again the themes of really expanding the united states' ties to this region will certainly be alive there in bali. so the president will spend another few hours here in darwin and then he will head to bali and he will, of course, be traveling with him every step of the way. >> one last word to you, kristin, suck ling pig in bali, the best, wherever you can find it. kristin with the president. >> good to know. >> it is quite good there. >> thank you so much with the president. we'll be getting back to her throughout his trip. that completes our coverage of the president's address to u.s. and australian armed forces in darwin, australia. now back to "hardball" with chris matthews on msnbc, the

place for politics. >> he felt a lot of shame. the nation came down on him including me. i think he felt a lot of shame and reached out to friends and said look, you don't know the what happened. but it is diametrically opposed to the grand jury report. he says he stopped it, and the grand jury report he says he became immediately distraught and left pep says he contacted the police. grand jury report says that didn't happen. the university official he spoke to was schulze who's in charge of the police. that washes out. but there are diametrically opposed stories, and we know what happens defense attorneys make millions. >> mike, go ahead here. >> i just want to point out that on the charge against curly and schulze, it's a perjury charge and it rests on the credibility of mcquery as opposed to schultz and curly.

so you know, these credibility issues, regardless of what you think about sand dusky right to you and the likelihood or not that he committed the act he's alleged to have committed for the prosecution to sustain the charges against curly and schultz, they have to present mcquery as a credible witness and to have these e-mails out there contradicting his sworn testimony and coming after his grand jury testimony, that's a real problem. >> yeah, but a grown-up jury, i hate to put too much play to the jury. a jury can distinguish between a guy telling the truth about somebody else's misbehavior and doing something that makes himself look better. a yir can understand motive and why you would be honest about one thing and dishonest about another? >> i'm not saying the case is completely destroyed here but i'm just saying this presents serious problems. it's also worth pointing out one

other problem about the 2002 incident for the prosecution's point of view. they don't have the 10-year-old boy. they have not been able to identify who it was. >> no. >> who was -- who was allegedly being assaulted here. >> wow. >> and that's a real -- that's a real problem. remember, sandusky's lawyer says we think we've found the kid and we think he's going to be able to come forward and say this never happened, it didn't happen in the way it's being described in the grand jury report. and if the prosecutors don't have the boy who was allegedly -- who was allegedly assaulted, that's another problem for their case. >> wow. >> so all told, there's the court of public opinion and i think most people would agree jerry sandusky hung himselfç i the court of public opinion, but there's still the court of law. as you look at it on the charges on the 2002 incident, there's problems. >> so great to have you on, buzz, one of the great reporters of our time. up next, the republicans running

for president can't touch president obama on foreign policy because of his success on getting terrorists. maybe that's many of them are talking about attacking iran with an act of war. this is "hardball" only on msbc.

the white house announced president obama will be heading to new hampshire next week to talk about his jobs plan, but there's a bigger reason. the president' now trailing mitt romney up in new hampshire by ten points.ç according to our battleground map, new hampshire is the oem state where john kerry won in 2004 that's now leaning republican. they're both from neighboring massachusetts, but the president needs to shore up his support in the granite state. we'll be right back.

introducing the perfect situp. invented by the u.s. navy seal who brought you the perfect pushup, the perfect situp re-invents the situp by combining the upper ab crunch with the lower ab leg lift. then the perfect situp adds an audible coach. you'll hear a click when you've done the exercise correctly. you hear it and you'll feel it. it's this one-two punch that gets you better faster results. traditional situps and crunches are hard to do, and only effectively work half your abs -- the upper half. but the perfect situp targets and tones the upper abs and the lower abs. the secret is the combination of perfect position and resistance. with the addition of the patent pending perfect situp leg blades you'll activate all your abs. the inner obliques, the outer obliques, the upper abs, and the hard to reach deep lower abs. in fact, a university study shows the perfect situp double crunch delivers a significantly more effective abdominal contraction than a regular crunch. and when you flatten the abs below the belt that sucks in the gut and helps you get into those skinny jeans. and that's what helps get fantastic results like this

for kara, and chris and elliott and the perfect situp makes it all easy. your head is fully supported and there's no strain on your neck. you can even use the perfect situp in a chair. just remove the leg blades and use it seated. and when you're done with your workout the perfect situp stores away. it hangs in a closet. so don't work half your abs. get a flat, toned stomach. work all your abs with the perfect situp. so here's the deal. get the perfect situp in your home for just 4 easy payments of $19.95 when you order you'll receive the perfect situp complete with adjustable head rest, adjustable and upgradeable 10 pound resistance leg blades, comfortable gym quality foam pad, the essential perfect situp cardio workout guide and reduced calorie meal plan and the ab crunching and perfect situp workout chart. but wait! if you call right now we'll take away one payment. that's right, get the original perfect situp, for just 3 easy payments of $19.95! but you've got to call right now. carve away inches from your stomach. get a perfect situp. call now.

welcome back to "hardball." at saturday night's republican convention debate, republic -- listen to mitt romney. >> the president should have built credible threat of military action and made it very clear that the united states of americaing is willing in the final analysis, if necessary, to take military action to keep iran from having a nuclear weapon. look, one thing you can know. that is if we re-elect barack

obama, iran will have a nuclear weapon and if weç elect mitt romney, if you elect me as the next president, they will not. >> what is he talking about? has he or any of the other republicans thought about the consequences of a u.s. attack on another muslim country. >> joining me is robin wright from the woodrow wilson center and steve clemens from the atlantic magazine. what's fascinating robin, in israel we had a poll that showed the people of israel most endangered by an iranian military weapon, a nuclear weapon because obviously, ahmadinejad has threatened them with it and they're clearly on the road to doing something with nuclear material, probably building a weapon according to the nuclear commission. he atomic energy commission. here's my question. if the israeli people are 50/50 whether to attack iran, how can newt romney be 100% that's the right way to go? >> i'm not sure the american

bilk, cbs found that 55% of americans believe diplomacy is the way out. so i'm not sure it reflects what american sentiment is. the reality is that mitt romney talked about generalities, talked about a military option that both the obama and bush administration before it have left on the table. and he offered no specifics about what are you going to do, particularly given our experience on in two neighboring countries, iraq and afghanistan over the past ten years and the fact that the military is not at all enthusiastic about a military option on iran. and is concerned that this is not just a one-strike deal to eliminate some facilities, suspected facilities. but. might actually have long-term repercussions that haunt the united states in many places in the middle eastç and beyond. >> we are still calling it the department of defense, aren't we? we don't call it the department of war anymore, do you? don't you have to build a case

for u.s. interests, not that we don't have an interest in our ally with israel, but isn't the department of defense responsible for defending the united states? can we just attack another country who hasn't attacked us at all? i'm sorry, i forgot we did it twice. go ahead, your thoughts. >> i agree with you completely. i think this is where the pentagon is deeply concerned about what happens in the aftermath. and what threats do you then have to begin defending against as well because iran whether through its allies, hezbollah in lebanon, allies in iraq, other factions in the region begin to take actions that you also have to build up your forces for, that this is much more complicated than he made it sound. >> steve, i think the israeli people are right now trying to figure the consequences of any action, even if the action is highly successful in surgically removing the atomic they're the from iran. but they also are looking at what else can happen. they're not stupid. romney seems to be here. let me just say he's not a

stupid man, but stupidly making an aareaion we're going to do something without weighing the consequences with the national security team. your thoughts? >> you know, he's trying to turn something that shouldn't be a black and white choice into one. the recently retired head of the ma sad in israel came out publicly critical of other political leaders in israel and said even in israel's case, a kind of overt action act against iran like this would be so against israel's interest. we see romney and other of the candidates in the gop in that debate pandering and fear mongering and actually trying to commit the united states to a course that's so utterlyç disruptive of our interests. you mentioned the department of defense. i wish it was called the department of strategy because what i keep waiting to hear from any of these candidates is a vision for where they think the united states needs to go. is this a knee jerk reactive view. it's this pugnacious, damn the

rest of the world unilateralalism that they think sells with the american public but it's very, very dangerous to having this kind of commentary out there. >> let me go. robin, churchill said there's two kinds of success, initial and ultimate. would that be a successful policy for israel to go to war with iran? because attacking them would be an act of war. >> reporter: this is a much more complicated question. the fact is, how much knowledge does iran have already. we don't know the answer to that. but if they are at a point that many people fear, there is a danger that even a military strike would not eliminate the knowledge that they have accumulated at this the point. remember, that the shah reportedly wanted a nuclear program, as well. this is something that produced persians feel is maybe important to their defense. and so the dynamics in terms of how this plays out are not just a straightforward answer. >> thank you so much.

it has a pride aspect to it.'-7 think. thank you, when we return, let me finish with the recklessness i believe mitt romney is showing by threatening and saying he will attack iran if he gets into office. wow, what a statement. we're going to war if he gets elected. you're watching "hardball" only on msnbc. let me finish toni

this. it's one thing to be clearly ignorant of foreign policy like when a candidate has no earthly

idea of the political movement that pushed for war with iraq when he actions as if his knowledge of the libyan war is just another note on an index card something to be retrieved from a pile of such cards lodged sloppily in his memory. that's one thing. add those two together, the ignorance adds to the most prominent advocates for one war and it's clear herman cain is never going to get the okay from the american people to be its leader. let me put to you a more dangerous case. suppose we had a candidate who threatened a new war before eelected. he's willing to threaten an act of war between nations as a bid for political success. i give you romney who now says if you elect me, he proposes an act of war against iran, presumably an attack on its alleged nuclear facilities. okay, you may like that proposition. it will come to a day when israel takes such a step but here's a candidate for a leader

of this country committing himself to promising through whatever means at his disposal, iran will not get the weapon. is he promising this. not netanyahu, not mitt romney. has romney calculated the fallout to a u.s. supported attack on iran? it would be an act of war and put it in the hands of those leading iran the option of how to respond. would they cut off the oil lanes, attack american interests in the region, rally the muslim world against us? niece are no small things to consider. you can beat the israeli people are considering them because they are the people most exposed to a nuclear weapon and most threatened by one with evenly dkv on whether to support an attack on iran's facility. they the people are in a quandary whether to commit an act of war. not romney. he's speaking even before getting to the presidency telling israel its right wing government, iran and its clerics, the muslim world what he is personally committed to