suggesting mcqueary didn't even directly see the molestation. so, today, at this preliminary hearing for two of his bosses, mcqueary finally gave his account, in open court, on the record, under oath, and it was a powerful one. he said he saw sexual activity between jerry sandusky and the boy and he told superiors what he saw. "there's no question in my opinion mind that i conveyed to university officials that i saw jerry with a boy in the shower and that it was severe sexual acts going on and that it was wrong and over the line." he went into detail, and our apologies, it is graphic detail, telling the court he heard rhythmic slapping sounds, like skin on skin. then he says, "i looked in the mirror and shockingly and surprisingly saw jerry with a boy in the shower." he said sandusky was behind the boy, the boy was against the wall. he told the court he believed the two were engaged in intercourse, but said he could not be sure. "i was not thinking straight," mcqueary said, adding he was "sure the incident was over" when he left. that contradicts the report that he wrote where he said, "i made sure it stopped" but not "i stopped it." there's a difference. in court today, he described what he did next, saying he called head coach joe paterno the next morning, telling paterno what he saw was "extremely sexual in nature." paterno told him he was shocked and saddened. paterno then told his boss, athletic director tim curley and gary schultz, a university vice president who oversaw the campus police. but keeping them honest, according to paterno's grand jury testimony, that was read back in court today, so that's the first time we're actually hearing the grand jury testimony, paterno did not notify them immediately because, and get this, he didn't want to interfere with their weekends. what's more, mcqueary's testimony today conflicts with another portion of joe paterno's account to the grand jury that mcqueary only told him he saw sandusky, "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature." that's different from mcqueary's characterization of the act as "extremely sexual." more than a week later, mcqueary was grilled by tim curley and gary schultz and alleged act got watered down even more. today the judge heard curley's grand jury testimony also read back. asked whether mcqueary reported seeing an act of sodomy, curley told the grand jury, absolutely not. as for schultz, he told the grand jury he recalled mcqueary saying that sandusky may have grabbed the boy's genitals while wrestling. schultz also testified that the allegations were "not that serious." then, essentially, nothing happened. neither curley nor schultz, panerto nor mcqueary notified campus or local police or state child welfare authorities as the state required. when asked by the lawyer why he didn't notify the police, schultz said he thought he was notifying the police, because schultz oversaw the campus police. again, nothing happened. the grand jury found mcqueary a reliable witness. they called portion of curley and schultz's accounts not credible. they're now facing charges of perjury and failure to report abuse. and that's what today's hearing was about. at the end of it, the judge concluded there is enough evidence to go forward with a trial. hln's mike galanos was inside the courtroom. he joins us now. mike, what was mcqueary's demeanor like on the witness stand? >> reporter: you know, anderson, in a case like this, we've talked so much about mike mcqueary, so i watched him as he walked into that courtroom. because jerry sandusky was the same way a couple of days ago. you watch his every move. same with mcqueary, he's a big guy, about 6'4". he had this demeanor, took a deep breath, walked up to the stand. he was ready to tell his story. i thought he was very credible and very succinct in what he had to say, and very detailed, which makes him even more credible. >> and what kind of response did he get in the courtroom? >> caller: again, to harken back to a couple of days ago when we thought we were going to hear accusers talk with jerry sandusky in the room, it was not as intense, but it became so when he began to talk, anderson, and we knew, as we were sitting in this courtroom, we're going to get detail. more detail of what he saw, allegedly, in 2002, and everybody had the laptops out, and it was this rat-a-tat-tat of everyone just transcribing his every word. and it lasted several hours. >> what i found most significant today, this really was the first time we heard some of the grand jury testimony read back. because, previously, all we'd had was this grand jury kind of a summation of what happened with the grand jury. >> reporter: yeah. again, it was back to a lot of the details that you rattled off. and even more so, as he began to tell his story, mike mcqueary, it was, he was at home and he was about ready to go to sleep, but he watched a football movie, and that motivated him to go to the football offices, because he was going to watch tapes of recruits, and it went from there. again, adding to that credibility, this incredible detail, because if he saw what he says he saw, he'll never forget it, anderson. >> mike galanos, thanks very much. let's bring in our legal panel, criminal defense attorney, mark geragos, senior legal analyst, jeffrey toobin. what'd you make, jeff, of this testimony today? >> it's certainly just horrific, when you think about the case against sandusky. the vividness, the detail. and, so, you know, sandusky remains in an absolute world of trouble. i think it is somewhat more problematic for the administrators. obviously, in a hearing like this, the government is always going to win, the case always proceeds, the standard of proof is very low. but when you look at the game of telephone that went on here. mcqueary to paterno to the administrators, it is not entirely clear what they heard. i mean, sure, mcqueary says now, this is what he told them, but there have been different versions of that. so this strikes me, at least, as a defensible case as far as the administers go if mcqueary is the only witness who comes forward, saying they told him anything. >> and if he is the only witness, mark, won't it be relatively easy for defense attorneys to try to pick away at his credibility, given the fact that there right now are three different versions of what he has said happened. >> it's never easy, being a defense lawyer, but i will tell you something. after this preliminary hearing, i would agree 100% with jeff. sandusky is -- remains in a world of trouble, but the prosecutors have a world of trouble when it comes to proving a perjury count here. just listening to the prosecution's case here, with they're lucky, they should be celebrating tonight that they got past the preliminary hearing. this, to me, at least, from the way it's being reported and the little synopsis that's being reported, i don't see how they ever make a perjury case. >> why are you saying that? what's so hard about the perjury? >> because, when he's talking, when they're testifying in front of the grand jury, the two defendants are testifying, they're saying, this is what he told me. everything that mcqueary is saying is conditioned on, i believe this is what i saw, i think i reported this. nothing is absolute. and it turns out today, apparently, he did not see any act of sexual intercourse, and when one of the administrators was testifying in front of the grand jury, he never told me that he saw a rape. that is the factually true, at least based on what was presented today. so i think the perjury case is an extremely weak one from a prosecution standpoint. >> i don't know about "extremely weak." i was with you part of the way there, mark. >> perjury's a tough -- is a tough thing to make. look at barry bonds. the idea, today, that he was sentenced and given basically a slap on the wrist in this case, i think, shows that, you know, these perjuries are tough cases to make. >> they are tough to make. and if it is based entirely on mcqueary, and we don't know that for sure, yet, it's problematic. but, you know, given the vividness of this testimony, if he says, look, i just told the same thing to the administrators and they, you know, reported, you know, not hearing that at all, i could see how a jury might convict. >> it still paints a pretty bleak picture by the response of mcqueary, of joe paterno, mcqueary going to his -- mcqueary's now saying on the stand, i believe that there was sexual activity, you know, he doesn't seem to have any doubts about it on the stand. if that is the case, why go to his father and then wait a day and go to paterno? and then paterno waits a weekend to call the guy because he doesn't want to bother the guy over the weekend? >> mark and i can talk about the trial strategy here, but talking about the moral issues here, talking about penn state university as an institution, this is a grotesque story. how many people knew something of importance here? all of these senior people. what did they do to find this kid? to this day we don't know who this kid is. victim number two has never been identified, because it's now years later. how do you track him down? they did nothing. from a moral perspective, all four of these guys, paterno, mcqueary, the two administrators should be ashamed of themselves. i don't know if anybody's going to be criminally convicted, but on a moral level, this was a disgrace. >> mark, without knowing who this victim or alleged victim was or is, i mean, obviously, that makes the case all the more difficult. >> it's exactly right. that's why when you've got mcqueary, who i think is equivocating when it comes to exactly what he told. remember, there's a distinction here. he's apparently fairly clear on what it is he saw or didn't see, but when it comes to what he actually told somebody, there's a great deal of equivocation. and that is the key here. and i don't disagree with jeff. i mean, there's a whole lot of blaming that you can do from a moral standpoint. but from a legal standpoint, this case is, i think, for the prosecution, in terms of the perjury, it's a very tough road for them. >> at what point, jeff, if you know, would we actually get the grand jury testimony? does that emerge at any point? >> not necessarily ever. i mean, it certainly, the way the rules work is that the defense is entitled to the prior testimony of anybody who testifies, and they can use it to cross-examine, and that, you know, portions may come out that way. but in terms of just grand jury testimony being released, that generally just doesn't happen. >> all right. jeff toobin, mark geragos, guys, thanks very much. let us know what you think. follow us on facebook, google plus, add us to your circles or on twitter @andersoncooper. i'll be tweeting. ahead, the heartbreaking autopsy results. we finally have the autopsy results detailing what happened to florida a&m drum major robert champion. what his body endured before he died, reportedly after running a brutal gauntlet of violent hazing on this bus, crossing bus sea, that's what the incident was called, allegedly at the hand of his band mates. and newt gingrich says he's not a washington lobbyist or a washington insider, but he does take big money and he does influence friends and former colleagues in washington. so what exactly is he? we're keeping him honest. and later, christopher hitchens, who believed in cigarettes and scotch, the power of telling the truth as he saw it, but famously not in god. he was blunt and funny, a hell of a writer. he lost a brave battle with cancer last night. tonight, the remarkable conversation i was lucky enough to have with him before he died. here's what he said about the kind of life he lived for decades. >> i rather enjoyed the feeling of burning the candle at both ends and living a 36-hour day. but it abruptly was born in on me that that was an illusion. imagine... one scooter or power chair that could improve your mobility and your life. one medicare benefit that, with private insurance, may entitle you to pay little to nothing to own it. one company that can make it all happen ... your power chair will be paid in full. the scooter store. hi i'm doug harrison. we're experts at getting you the power chair or scooter you need. i didn't pay a penny out of pocket for my power chair. with help from the scooter store, medicare and my insurance covered it all. call the scooter store for free information today. i think we should see other people. in fact, i'm already seeing your best friend, justin. ♪ i would have appreciated a proactive update on the status of our relationship. who do you think i am, tim? quicken loans? at quicken loans, we provide you with proactive updates on the status of your home loan. and our innovative online tools ensure that you're always in the loop. one more way quicken loans is engineered to amaze. keeping them honest on the campaign trail tonight, the republican presidential candidates held their final debate last night before the iowa caucuses and the new hampshire primary. at the fox event michele bachmann went after front-runner newt gingrich over mortgage backers fannie mae and freddie mac and his reportedly lucrative relationship with freddie mac. >> i was trying to see these two entities put into bankruptcy because they frankly need to go away. when the speaker had his hand out and he was taking $1.6 million to influence senior republicans to keep the scam going in washington, d.c.. that's absolutely wrong. >> here's a portion of his defense. >> the easiest answer is that's just not true. what she just said is factually not true. i never lobbied under any circumstance. >> keeping them honest, though, that's not quite true. the nonpartisan politifact.com rates it only half true. speaker gingrich is not a registered lobbyist. true. however, in washington, you can be a lobbyist in almost every way except in name. according to politifact's research on lobbying law, you can do almost anything a registered lobbyist can do, except meet more than once per quarter with a lawmaker or staffer on behalf of the client. you can, however, advise the client on which lawmakers to meet and drop your name with. you can tell registered lobbyists who to see and what points to push. then you can have one big meeting with a lawmaker you're trying to influence to seal the deal. this apparently is what newt gingrich did on behalf of freddie mac for that reported $1.6 million. now, according to bloomberg news, speaker gingrich worked with mitchell delk, freddie mac's chief lobbyist. delk told bloomberg that gingrich provided "counsel on public policy issues." now, remember, when this first came out, gingrich said that freddie mac had hired him in his capacity as a historian. a historian. there are other instances the former house speaker selling his influence in washington, but before we go on, we should note that there's nothing at all wrong with mr. gingrich's actions, legally speaking. some of it, though, is clearly at odds with the positions he's taking now on the campaign trail. today's "new york times" has a rundown. shortly before the 2009 stimulus bill, gingrich's political committee denounced it and said it should be stopped. at the same time he was cheering a $19 billion chunk of the bill that promoted electronic health records. gingrich's center for health transformation had pushed for it on behalf of clients microsoft and all scripps. according to the times, gingrich's center also met with former conservative house colleagues who were seeking to block renewal of the state children's health insurance program. the "times" reporting, "at the time his center was being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by major drug companies and insurers, groups that would have been harmed by a lapse in the program." a drugmaker named novo nordisk is a 200 grand a year charter member in gingrich's center for health transformation. in addition to that, novo, which is the world's largest maker of insulin, hired a related gingrich company, the gingrich group. the "times" reports that a presentation made by a gingrich aide to novo executives in 2004 emphasized the gingrich center was "working to insure" that medicare covered insulin made by novo. the "times" further citing for this presentation the claim that mr. gingrich himself planned to meet with members of congress, "to help them develop priorities," on fighting diabetes. then there's this from the "times" story. in its annual report to shareholders, this is a quote, "novo nordisk listed its work with mr. gingrich under the category of public policy activities, noting such activities are often referred to as lobbying." a spokesman for novo nordisk backed away from that term saying speaker gingrich was simply providing guidance and strategic advice on "how best we could inform policy makers." in the end, novo nordisk won the diabetes issue. also in the end gingrich's clients won their $19 billion electronic records provision. and also in the end freddie mac paid newt gingrich a lot of money for his services. and still he says he did no lobbying of any kind for any organization. keeping them honest, though, you can do exactly what he did without being a lobbyist, without breaking a single law. republicans, democrats do it every single day. former senators, congress members, regulators, even judges. it's called influence peddling. not flattering, perhaps, but not illegal either. and for years it's been speaker gingrich's bread and butter. a lot to talk about tonight with ari flieshser, press secretary in the george w. bush administration. you can follow him on twitter @ariflieshser. also chief political analyst gloria borger and gop strategist rich galen who's a former spokesman for dan quayle and newt gingrich. gloria, i mean, gingrich wasn't officially registered as a lobbyist. he seems to have acted a lot like one. is that going to be used against him, do you think, increasingly in this campaign? >> yeah. absolutely. because i think in this republican primary, the worst thing you can possibly be is a washington insider. here is somebody who first became famous leading a revolution in the '90s to take over the house and it was his revolution. and the new portrait that's emerging of newt gingrich is someone who may not have been officially registered as a lobbyist but somebody who his opponents would say sold his access and used his influence with people of influence to talk on behalf of his clients. now, newt gingrich says i've never changed a position because of a client i represented and that may, in fact, be the truth. but he's going to have to prove that to voters who are very skeptical of anyone who has spent the last 20 or 30 years in washington. >> rich -- >> whether or not he was a lobbyist, anderson, his clients appear to have been very much helped by government -- by big government spending. >> exactly. >> so i think it's really a finer point here in washington than it is outside of washington. >> and ari, has he been up-front enough about what he did? i mean, whether it was technically lobbying or not, i mean, he at one point said he was kind of a historian for -- >> yeah, that -- >> is that really honest? >> that bothered me, when he said that. i think he should have been blunt and just said that he worked as somebody who gave strategic advice. he's eventually come around to that position. he was trying to be too cute. but these issues really are not sticking to newt. people are saying this about newt, but this is not what's going to hurt newt. what's going to hurt newt is whether newt blows himself up. he's too temperamental. people just don't get comfortable with his bombastic style. that's what's going to hurt newt. not this insider/outsider washington issue. he's going to be fine on that front. what the big issue is for newt gingrich is if it's in a republ