pursuing a private vendetta against a gay college student. results of an official investigation are in, and they are startling. what we have learned about him today. the alleged tucson shooter in court today facing charges with a smile. a smile? we'll tell you what was behind the grin of this alleged mass murderer and update you on the condition of congresswoman gabrielle giffords. we begin as always, keeping them honest. comments that are either a deliberate rewriting of our history or signs that michele bachmann has a shaky grasp on our history. why does this matter? is it just an attack on a controversial lawmaker? we don't think so. lots of lawmakers probably don't know all they should about american history, tv show anchors as well. michele bachmann is repeatedly changing the history of the constitution. what she says matters, because people do listen to her, we think facts matter, particularly when it's facts about our founding as a nation. speaking to a group called iowaens for tax relief, congressman bachman seemed to whitewash over our painful history of slavery. she air brushed herself some new history. here she is talking about what people have faced throughout history when coming to america. >> it didn't matter the color of their skin. it didn't matter their language, it didn't matter their economic status. it didn't matter whether they descended from know billetty or are of a higher class or a lower class. it made no difference, once you got here, we were all the same. >> as much as we wish that were the case, that's simply not true. whether she was talking about the founding of our nation or the experience of immigrants throughout our history that were not treated the same. irish immigrants didn't feel the same, japanese americans didn't feel the same when they were placed in internment camps. and enslaved africans didn't feel the same when they were brought here against their will. she mentioned slavery, but only to say it was something the founding fathers couldn't wait to get rid of. >> we know that was slavery that was still tolerated when the nation began. we know that was an evil and a block and a stain upon our history. but we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the united states. and i think it is high time that we recognize the contribution of our forebearers who worked tirelessly, men like john quincy adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country. >> again, congresswoman bachman has her facts wrong, many of the founders owned slaves, george washington, thomas jefferson who wrote all men are created equal owned slaves. jefferson was conflicted about it, but others were not. the constitution itself establishes slaves as 3/5 of a person, a political compromise. as for john quincy adams, ms. bachman is right, he was a tireless campaigner against slavery. but he was not a founding father as she implied. this is not the first time she's gotten the facts wrong or invented her own facts. just recently on 360, she claimed president obama's trip to asia would cost $200 million a day. we proved how that was unfounded. plenty of other examples, we focus on this tonight, not just because she's going to be speak tomorrow night, but because we believe facts matter, particularly where our history is concerned. one of the many things that makes this country great is we are able to examine our best, we are at our best when we learn from the past. rewriting history doesn't do anyone any good. it doesn't honor our history. we invited congresswoman bachman on the program tonight. she denied. we're joined by susan malinari, paul begala and eddie glaw, jr. from princeton university. professor, what do you make of her comments. is this a whitewashing of history? >> in part i think it is. what it suggests is that she lacks a little nuance to put it gently. we do know that there was debate among the founding fathers about slavery. some opposed outright, others were indif rent. what happened as a result of the debate wasn't resolution, but as you mentioned at the top of the piece was compromise. the 3/5 compromise and also the fugitive slave clause, which allowed slave owners to retrieve their escaped property. what i think she would have been better equipped to do is appeal to a different tradition, a tradition of americans who sought to correct the contradictions around our democratic prince peoples evident in our practice. that is the ap listist movement in the 1830s, frederick douglass, those who laid down their lives in interesting sorts of ways. i have a strange suspicion that michele bachmann would label them unamerican or terrorists. >> does this matter? commends like this, does it mat summer. >> it's a good news/bad news thing. there are some in her party who will appreciate this. maybe she can win the republican nomination. bad news,probably can't win, who's smarter than a fifth grader. she is running at a fringe. you know, her party has a lot of terribly bright people, we just saw rudy giuliani, interviewed by piers morgan. there's a fringe of her party who wants to go back to the days of the no nothings. they were bitterly prejudiced about catholics, jews, african-americans, and almost anyone else they could think of. i'm not saying that's what she is, i'm saying there's a strain in her party that says, i've got my mind made up, don't confuse me with the facts. >> michele bachmann is one area of the republican party. there's many great wonderful spokespeople for the republican party. i think what michele bachmann was trying to say was to look more positively toward our history, and the history of the united states. i don't think she meant anything negative about it. i don't quite understand why it's such a big deal right now, when i thought we were here to discuss the state of the union speech. but i guess we decided to change our mind. i'm not really quite prepared to discuss why she said what she said or what it's impact was. that's not what i thought we were going to discuss this evening. >> why do you think she's decided to make her own response to the state of the union speech. >> i'm not really sure why she decided to make her own state of the union speech. she's always been active, a vocal spokesperson for her beliefs and the tea party, clearly as you know, paul ryan, the new chairman of the budget committee, and someone who is considered very conservative, and very proactive, when it comes to reducing the deficit. now pledges to be in the minority as the spokesperson chosen by the republican party and the republican party leadership, in terms of cutting spending, reducing the deficit and restoring fiscal discipline to our nation. >> does it make sense for michele bachmann to have her own response out there? >> for ms. bachman, honestly, i know i was making fun of her before. i think it's helpful for her, but i don't think it's helpful for the republican party for the reasons susan states. and maybe not so much for the democrats. we go for the glittery sharp object out there, and forget it's a fishing lure and we get hooked. we get distracted by michele bachmann when we should be focusing on paul ryan. he has a budget that would privatize social security, turn medicare into a voucher program. cut taxes on the rich, and raise taxes on everybody between 20,000 a year. it hammers the middle class, creams the poor and helps the rich. michele bachmann is a little more colorful -- >> probably what we should be talking about is what the president of the united states plans to do to reduce the deficit. i think that's probably the discussion that the american people want to hear, and are anxious to see the solutions that the president of the united states is going to put forward in order to change the direction of the nation. >> what do you want to hear from the president? >> jobs, jobs, jobs. let me tell you, i know -- i'll have to be covering it and analyzing it for cnn, so i can't do it. but i want a drinking game where every time he says the word jobs i get to take a drink. george bush had an initiative for competitiveness for his state of the union in 2006 and it didn't do us any good. i've never seen the country more focused on one need, and that is jobs. and if he's dancing around either with euphemisms like american competitiveness or ignoring jobs, which i can't imagine -- i think that's where he needs to be, i'm going to talk about the future, and i'm going to talk about jobs. and we'll let ms. bachman talk about the past and mr. ryan talk about privatizing social security. >> i think there's a difference between the two political parties that we're going to have a year-long discussion on, how do we get to those jobs. there is a great divide in the nation right now, between those who want to cut the deficit and reduce the debt, in order to make us more competitive. those who want to create government investments in order to create those jobs, and i think that is going to be the defining difference between the two political parties we have moving forward. >> we have to leave it there. let us know in the live chat what you think. coming up next, remember that assistant attorney general in michigan fired for harassing and attacking online a gay college student? he's been fired already, but startling new information about what his boss really knew. and new information that says he wasn't telling the truth when he appeared on this program. we're keeping them honest. jared lee loughner smiling in court today, laughing to himself, we're told. he entered his plea on murder charges. disturbing reports on his demeanor. also, isha joins us. >> i'll have the latest on the story we brought up just last week, involving carlina white, she was kidnapped as a baby. new details about the woman who abducted her. plus, the latest installment in coco versus leno. i'm not sure what team you're on, but leno has gone and done it again. he's one-upped conan o'brien, but do you know how? >> no, how. >> i'm the woman with the answers. for every warrior who charges into the fight... is another who fights to keep moving forward until their return. military lives are different. at usaa we've been there. we understand. that's why our commitment to serve military, veterans and their families is without equal. usaa. for insurance, banking, investments, retirement and advice... we know what it means to serve. let us serve you. t adwiwiout food al t ask me. if you think even the best bed can only lie there... ask me what it's like... when my tempur-pedic moves... ...talk to someone who owns an adjustable version of the most highly recommended bed in america... ask me about my tempur advanced ergo. ask me about having all the right moves. these are real tempur-advanced ergo owners! find one for yourself. check out twitter. try your friends on facebook... see what they have to say...unedited. it goes up... ask me what it's like to get a massage ---any time you want. ...it goes down... ergo...nomics... ergo...nomics... tempur-pedic brand owners are more satisfied than owners of any traditional mattress brand. (in chinese) ask me why i never want to leave my ergo. ask me why i'm glad i didn't wait 'till i was too old to enjoy this. start asking real owners. ask me how to make your first move... find out more about the tempur advanced ergo system! call the number on your screen for your free dvd and information kit. to find an authorized dealer near you, visit tempurpedic.com. tempur-pedic. the most highly recommended bed in america. new information tonight in a story we've been keeping them honest on from the beginning. information confirming our reporting that a public law enforcement official was conducting a private vendetta and more. he was doing it in part on taxpayer time, not just exercising his first amendment rights as he and his boss contended at the time. we're talking about andrew shervol. he was a michigan state assistant attorney general. he was fired over his fixation on a gay college student. chris armstrong had a radical homosexual agenda and created an entire blog on line attacking the guy, making up all sorts of lies about him, allegations, unfounded stories. this is a screen shot of one blog posting, it has a picture of the student with a nazi insignia in the rainbow flag with the word resign. he calls the college students a nazi-like recruiter for the cult that is homosexuality. he even called him satan's representative on the student assembly. that's a quote. in addition, he's shouted down armstrong in public and appeared outside his home at 1:30 in the morning videotaping and then called the police. since then he's been fired. his boss has been superseded as attorney general. tonight we got a handle on the attorney general's position on the whole affair. >> i gotta ask you, you're a state official. this is a college student. what are you doing? >> well, anderson basically, if you've been involved in political campaigns before, you know all sorts of stuff happens, this is just another attack bringing attention to what chris stands for. >> this is a guy who's running a stund counsel? >> well, as a private citizen and as a university of michigan alum i care, because this is my university. i wasn't the only person to criticize chris. in fact, long before i started the blog a couple weeks before that, the alliance defense fund a well-known christian foundation put out an alert about chris. so i'm not the only person that has criticized chris, and i'm not the first person to criticize chris. >> you are the only person running this blog which is putting nazi swastikas on this guy. you're a grown adult. does that seem appropriate to you. >> like i said this is a political campaign. this is nothing personal against chris. >> what do you mean it's nothing personal. >> i don't know chris -- >> you're videotaping outside his house, you're shouting him down at public events. you're calling him satan's representative on the student counsel. you're attacking his parents, his friends parents. you can't say it's not personal. >> chris, in any political campaign, have you to raise awareness and issues, that's one way of doing it is by protesting. >> it was bizarre to say the least. i should mention, mr. shirvell is not running for anything, nor is chris armstrong. he's already student body president. when we had mr. shirvell's boss on the show, he downplayed any problems. >> he does his job well from 8:30 to 5:00 very well. him blogging is not impacting the mission of the office. here in america, we have this thing called the first amendment, which allows people to express what they think. and engage in political and social speech. >> so that's the backdrop, shirvell thinks he's exercising his right to enter political fray, even though his actions which got him barred from the university campus seem more like harassment. his boss is saying there's nothing he can do because of the first amendment. shirvell verbally assaulted a supervisor at work, violated policy, and properly contacted a student's employer, engaged in a reckless conduct and refused to alter it and more. shirvell used state resources to make some of these poisonous postings on his blog and facebook and misled investigators. we do not believe that assistant attorney general shirvell was being truthful on this issue. he was not telling the truth when he told us he was merely protesting, when he was videotaping outsidearm strong's house at 1:30 in the morning. we wanted to invite shirvell back on 360, but neither he nor his lawyer returned our calls. we spoke with his former boss who told us supervisors did not report on shirvell's harassment. he had nothing more to say and would not be issuing a statement on it. debra, mike cox says he didn't know about all these past incidents involving shirvell until after the fact. does that make any sense to you given their findings in this report zm. >> no, it makes no sense at all. if you look at this guy, he has a lengthy history, even predating his time with the attorney general's office. andrew shirvell was arrested for assault and battery in 2001 for spitting on two people. he has a history of going after log cabin republicans with despicable disgusting e-mails, he had a drunk driving conviction. now let's fast forward to the time he gets to the attorney general's office. it's clear that he spent a great deal time at work stalking chris armstrong and others. creating his ugly hate speech that he sent around. moreover, as you mentioned a moment ago, he was involved in apparently a horrible meltdown in august of 2010, so much so that a couple of the legal secretaries were terrified and put it in writing that they've never seen such conduct in all their time with the office. >> given all what you said, it seems hard to believe that the attorney general would come on this program and say well all of this is new information to me, i didn't know about any of this, and he hasn't had prior problems, essentially? >> it seems extremely odd. i'm not saying, perhaps he came on here without checking, i suppose that's remotely possible. it doesn't seem logical, i don't know. i do know that his investigators did a heck of a job investigating this guy now. we do have the total picture i believe. having said that, no, he had a trail at the attorney general's office. he was up on facebook obviously very public place to be with hate speech early in 2010 leading right up to the time of your show, the blog was up there. the first amendment has been thrown around a lot in this case and it's really offensive. they're hiding behind the first amendment. this is not first amendment protected speech. >> it's pretty shocking it seems what it took to get fire from the attorney general's office in the state of michigan. >> right. and the backdrop we haven't mentioned so far, shirvell was a campaign volunteer for mike cox, the -- not a volunteer, he was a volunteer and then a paid staffer, the question here is did cox protect shirvell because he was a political ally? i don't know what you can call shirvell's politics, they're too weird to be called anything at all. mike cox is a conservative republican who has not been supportive of gay rights, shirvell obviously has this weird obsession with gay rights. i think the synergy there is the most troubling aspect of it. the question is, was cox protecting shirvell or was he ignorant of all the craziness going on in his office. >> in defense of the attorney general, it's a big office, was it possible he wasn't informed that one of his assistant attorney generals was screaming and threatening a supervisor? >> anything's possible. i used to work in government lawyer's offices, that sort of craziness is pretty unusual. and the boss would generally be informed of misconduct of that magnitude. can i say for sure that cox knew? i can't. >> i want to play for you some of what mike cox said in his interview. >> the supreme court, both the united states supreme court in 1995, in a case called the u.s. versus treasury employees said that civil service employees in the federal system and by extension in the state system have free -- first amendment rights outside of work, as long as it doesn't impact their performance at their job. >> and you already referred to that and said you don't buy that. in terms of -- >> i never bought it. i've always thought it was absurd, this is not first amendment speech. it's not about politics, it's not even about homosexuality per se. it's about going after particular individuals in order to try to ruin their lives. that's what it's about. that's clearly actionable in civil court. >> are you pursuing legal action against him? i know you're trying to get him disbarred, right? >> yes, we are. >> where does that stand? >> clearly, in my opinion, he should not have a lice