Read and download the complete transcript of the March 29, 2012 edition of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

Read and download the complete transcript of the March 29, 2012 edition of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

Read and download the complete transcript of the March 29, 2012 edition of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

In our third story on the “Countdown” — President Obama urged the Senate this morning to pass legislation that would strip billions in tax breaks for the “big five” American oil companies, only to have Republicans — with the help of four Democrats — kill the bill.

Just an hour before the vote, the president had framed the lawmaker’s decision as a simple choice between promoting oil giants or investing in the future:

(Excerpt from video clip) OBAMA: They can stand with the big oil companies, or they can stand with the American people. Instead of taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s never been more profitable, we should be using that money to double down on investments in clean-energy technologies that have never been more promising.

SPITZER: But Republicans insist the measure would drive up prices at the pump.

(Excerpt from video clip) MITCH McCONNELL: That was their brilliant plan on how to deal with gas prices — raise taxes on energy companies just to make sure gas prices don’t go anywhere but up.

SPITZER: And GOP Senator Rand Paul didn’t mince his words on the floor earlier this week.

(Excerpt from video clip) RAND PAUL: I would think you would want to say to the oil companies, “What obstacles are there to you making more money?”

SPITZER: I always continue to marvel at what Rand Paul says.

Joining me now is Joe Williams, the White House reporter for Politico. Joe, thanks for joining us tonight.

JOE WILLIAMS: Hi, good to be here.

SPITZER: Look, it struck me that there are three numbers that are going to determine the outcome of the race in November: the unemployment rate, the price of housing — whether it’s going up or down — and three, the price of gas.

So, are we just now entering the blame game, where both parties are pointing the finger back and forth and saying, “You’re responsible for the price of gas going up?”

WILLIAMS: Well, I think there’s some of that. What the president is attempting to do is rebut against some of the Republican allegations on the campaign trail from Mitt Romney and others that he’s solely responsible for these high gas prices, when statistically — imperially, studies, anything you want to point to — shows that this is part of what usually happens during the summer driving season, number one.

And number two, the oil companies are taking very real advantage of the fact that the market is tilted in their favor.

So, what he’s trying to do is call attention to that fact, and also link it to the need for alternative energy — that if we get a sound alternative-energy strategy, things will really ease, and our demand for oil will decrease, along with the price.

The Republicans, on the other hand, they’ve got an easy talking point. Everybody feels pain at the wallet. So, their strategy is to pretty much say that the president is in for it: “He’s trying to do things that will wreck the economy, even though he thinks that it will benefit the public. We, the Republican party know better, and that answer is more drilling.”

SPITZER: Now, the interesting thing is — if I’ve seen the polling data properly — about somewhere in the low twenties of the public blames the president, somewhere in the low twenty blames the Republicans, and about over 50 percent blame, you guessed it, the oil companies. And so, that kind of makes sense, given you know, who it’s easy to throw mud at.

The interesting thing is that we, in fact, are moving towards energy independence, bit by bit, and have begun moving that way over the past four or five years. Has that fact crept into the public psyche, do you think?

WILLIAMS: It really hasn’t, and that is another goal of this meeting that the president had — or this press conference that the president had — with all these people standing behind him, so he can once again make the point that we’re drilling now more than we ever have.

Technology has increased, we’ve got oil leases that oil companies haven’t even started using yet, to drill on lands that they’re just kind of laying fallow. So, an attempt to draw the line — draw a clear distinction between his energy strategy, the fact that it includes clean energy and a move towards independence — with the Republican strategy, which basically is to put more holes in the ground, pump more oil out, that, in turn, contributes to pollution. That’s where he wants to go with this.

The question will be whether or not the Republicans will come around, or if gas prices will reduce enough as the year goes on that this won’t be an election-year factor.

SPITZER: Look, the interesting thing is that — even with the disaster in the Gulf, and all the concerns that were raised by that in terms of the environmental impact of drilling — there has been this enormous push towards drilling more, and an enormous amount, in particular, in terms of natural gas. And this White House has been pretty open to expanding, significantly, natural-gas supplies, and that’s where most of the progress is being made.

Has that — again, has that issue sort of become part of the public debate, or are we just still talking here about fringe issues that everybody loves to pull out during campaign season?

WILLIAMS: The answer is yes. Both of the above, and I say that because — environmentalists really don’t like this current energy policy that allows for fracking, which has been linked to water contamination, also earthquakes in certain parts of the country. They also don’t like the strategy of deep-water drilling, where around the world there are more oil derricks that can drill deeper — we’re talking two miles down in the bottom of the ocean, which is well past where the Deepwater Horizon was able to drill. That’s all an anathema because one accident can cause the whole thing to fall apart, like we saw two years ago when the Deepwater Horizon blew up.

The big issue here, though is to try to keep moving the country towards an energy strategy, and if President Obama doesn’t do more drilling, doesn’t include fossil fuels as part of the conversation, prices spike, the economy tanks, he is in very real trouble.

SPITZER: And of course, Joe, I think most people who really study this understand the decisions that are made at a policy level will have an impact six months, or else ten years down the road. Probably not in the time frame that is politically significant, given the incipient election. I guess maybe by November, some small impact.

But anyway, we’ll continue to see this story playing out.

Joe Williams, White House reporter for Politico. Great thanks for your being here this evening.

WILLIAMS: Thanks to you.

Read and download the complete transcript of the March 29, 2012 edition of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

But in our fourth story — the endorsement by the former president was all but overshadowed by the man many people see as Mitt Romney’s future running mate, Marco Rubio. Appearing on Fox News last night, Senator Rubio announced his endorsement of Romney. But he, once again, affirmed his lack of interest in joining the ticket.

(Excerpt from video clip) RUBIO: I don’t believe I’m going to be asked to be the vice presidential nominee. That’s not what I intend to be, that’s not what I want to be and that’s not what is going to happen.

SPITZER: As Mitt Romney continues to cement his status as the nominee, Newt Gingrich continues to cement his status as the next Republican to drop out. Gingrich’s sole reason for still being in the race, Sheldon Adelson, declaring it the end for Newt Gingrich.

(Excerpt from video clip) SHELDON ADELSON: It appears as though he’s at the end of his line. Because I mean, mathematically, he can’t get anywhere near the numbers, and there’s not — unlikely to be a brokered convention.

SPITZER: A fact Gingrich seems to be aware of. The Washington Times reports that Gingrich and Romney secretly met Saturday before the Louisiana primary, but Gingrich tried to assure his supporters that he will not drop out. And I quote, “There is no agreement of any kind, and I plan to go all the way to Tampa.”

Joining me now is Ryan Grim, Washington bureau chief for The Huffington Post. Thank you for your time this evening.

RYAN GRIM: Thanks for having me.

SPITZER: So, let me ask you this question: the two endorsements — Marco Rubio, former President Bush — come from completely different pieces of the Republican party. You’ve got one who is young, tea party, ethnic, Latino, critical vote. The other who is patrician, the old guard. Which of these two matters more to Mitt Romney?

GRIM: Well, I mean — George H.W. Bush barely mattered at all. I think when most people saw that, they thought, “Huh. I figured that he had actually already endorsed Romney.” You know, this is like the, you know, Yale class of ’42 endorsing the, you know Harvard class of ’65 or whatever.

SPITZER: Yeah, but folks from the Ivy League, that’s pretty significant, though — Yale endorsing Harvard. Come on, this is important.

GRIM: That is true. So, you know, in Yale-Harvard circles, it probably raised a few eyebrows, but outside of there, people were — you know, people were less moved.

It’s the Marco Rubio — it’s that endorsement that kind of signaled to the Republican party that, “Look, this is over.” You know, this is representative of the far-right wing of the party saying, “I’m backing this guy. Let’s wrap this thing up and let’s move forward.”

SPITZER: Now, Rubio is significant — not only because, as you say, the far-right wing. He is a pure tea party voice. But also, being Latino — this is critically important. But is the Latino vote in Florida going to be helpful either in Arizona, New Mexico — some of the other swing states where the Latino vote may look a little different? Is there more texture to the Latino vote than most people appreciate?

GRIM: Well, there is, and you wonder how much some of the — some of the leading Republican strategists even are aware of that. But the difference is that the Cuban immigrant experience is a unique one in the Latin community. You know, if you’ve come up through Mexico or South America, you have a much more similar story than somebody that came from Cuba, because, first of all, there’s direct public policy — and that’s the dry-foot policy — where if you get here, any way possible, in the last 40 years, you can stay.

SPITZER: Right.

GRIM: Secondly, the types of people that came from Cuba in the late ’50s, ’60′s — even ’70s — were people who were kind of — who were in the ruling class, and they were fleeing Fidel Castro, so that’s the exact opposite of the situation that the rest of the immigrant population faces, where it’s the lower class coming, and — rather than being welcomed — they get the reverse attitude.

SPITZER: So, you’re making a hugely important point here, which is that the Rubio voice for Latino voters may or may not translate quite as well to other aspects, or other pieces, of the Latino community.

I want to sort of play with the idea of the likelihood of his being asked to be in the ticket. How would a Marco Rubio play in the traditional swing, Midwest states of, let’s say, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, some of which — probably two out of three of which — Mitt Romney would have to win for him to get to the magic 270. Does Rubio help Mitt Romney in those states?

GRIM: Well, you know, he’s — I don’t think he helps him, but I don’t think he necessarily hurts him either. You know, people will see him as a kind of an up-from-bootstraps kind of guy, you know, whether or not he actually is, they’ll — you know, he’ll write his story that way, and enough of the Republican voters will believe that. So, you know, I don’t think it will play that much there.

You know, they are going to go for Colorado and New Mexico and Florida. You know, don’t forget that Florida is an important state, too. So places like that, he might be able to help them slightly, because — notwithstanding what I said earlier — he is going to get more of the Latino vote than somebody like, say, Vice President Joe Arpaio would. You know, it is at least saying to Latino voters, “We at least care. At least we’re trying here. Yes, we might have all of this nativist rhetoric and we might have said all of these horrible things —”

SPITZER: No question about it. You put a Joe Arpaio on, you might as well kiss good-bye to the entire immigrant community.

But my view on Florida is — if Mitt Romney is worried about Florida, he’s not going to win. He’s got to be in a position to take Florida for granted — in which case, Marco Rubio may or may not be that important — and then fight for Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, for this thing to be competitive from their perspective.

So, if he’s still worried about Florida, come the moment where they’re making this decision, he is probably out of luck. Anyway, we’ll continue this conversation down the road.

Washington bureau chief for The Huffington Post, Ryan Grim. Thank you for your time tonight.

GRIM: Thank you.

Read and download the complete transcript of the March 29, 2012 edition of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

Fifth story in the “Countdown” — the initial report from Sanford, Florida police claims Zimmerman suffered scalp lacerations, allegedly from a life-and-death struggle with Martin. Zimmerman’s attorney also insisted his client also suffered a broken nose.

Yet, the video shows Zimmerman handcuffed but walking freely inside the police station without bloodstains on his face or clothes, bandages or other indications he’d even been in a fight.

Zimmerman’s father Robert, a retired magistrate judge repeated those claims in an interview, concealing his face for fear of being assaulted:

(Excerpt from video clip) ZIMMERMAN: His nose was broken. His scalp was cut in two different places. I don’t know — he wasn’t given any medical attention but they may have cleaned him up there at the scene.

SPITZER: But Trayvon Martin’s parents, Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton, said the video directly contradicted those claims, and vindicated their son.

(Excerpt from video clip) TRACY MARTIN: Once you’ve had a broken nose, your nose will continue to bleed and bleed and bleed until it gets fixed.

(Excerpt from video clip) FULTON: There were no visible injuries. There were no blood on his shirt. So we have concluded, just by watching this video, that there may not have been any injuries at all.

SPITZER: Meanwhile, George Zimmerman’s attorney Craig Sonner wouldn’t commit himself either way.

(Excerpt from video clip) CRAIG SONNER: The video is very grainy, and I’m not sure it has — as far as being able to see the injuries that were recently sustained and then later cleaned up.

SPITZER: Robert Zimmerman also laid a new charge against Trayvon Martin, while again defending his son.

(Excerpt from video clip) ZIMMERMAN: Trayvon Martin said something to the effect of, “You’re going to die now, or “You’re going to die tonight.” He continued to beat George and, at some point, George pulled his pistol and did what he did.

SPITZER: But, Martin’s girlfriend, who claimed she was on the phone with him before the shooting, insists that never happened.

(Excerpt from audio clip) DEE DEE: The only thing that Trayvon told that man is was, “Why are you following me?”

SPITZER: And funeral director Richard Kurtz cast more doubt on Zimmerman’s assault claim after examining Martin.

(Excerpt from video clip) RICHARD KURTZ: As for his hands and knuckles, I didn’t see any evidence as he had been fighting anybody.

SPITZER: And while protesters and Trayvon Martin’s parents continue to call for George Zimmerman’s arrest, Cheryl Brown, whose 13-year-old son was an eyewitness to the shooting, says Sanford homicide detective Chris Serino may also believe that Zimmerman was the real culprit that night.

(Excerpt from video clip) CHERYL BROWN: He told me that he — that he and the other officer with him felt that it was not self-defense, and that they needed to prove it wasn’t self-defense. And he said that I needed to read between the lines, because there was some stereotyping going on.

SPITZER: For the latest on the Trayvon Martin story, I’m joined by Andy Kroll, staff reporter with Mother Jones.

Andy, let me ask you this — the video that is now the hottest topic out there in conversation seems to contradict everything about the Zimmerman story. So, what possibly remains to substantiate the claim of a fight and an encounter that would, in any way, have justified a shooting?

ANDY KROLL: Yeah, the video certainly doesn’t, you know, give any kind of evidence of a life-or-death fight. There are no bloodstains — he doesn’t look like he sustained a broken nose. Really, what George Zimmerman’s attorney is going to have to hope for is some sort of evidence unearthed — or more leaks from the Sanford Police Department or from some other authorities — suggesting that this was a more vicious fight. Because, as we see in this video, George Zimmerman looks like any other person pulled off of the street and brought in to the authorities.

It certainly does not give any kind of credence to this story that George Zimmerman’s father and his attorney seems to be telling.

SPITZER: Listening to the father, you actually would believe there would have to be some physical evidence of an encounter. I mean, they talk about his head being bashed against the ground, lacerations — is there any physical substantiation yet that anybody has been able to report or seen — that corroborates that story?

KROLL: There are just little bits of evidence here and there that people are pointing to to substantiate this.

The first one is the police report on the night of Trayvon Martin’s killing, says that George Zimmerman was treated between the time — you know, before he arrived at the Sanford Police Department, and so he — his face wouldn’t be covered in blood and his lacerations wouldn’t be open and gaping. He had been treated.

However, it’s important to remember that this — these surveillance videos we saw are 30 minutes after he committed this act and was brought in. And so even if he had been treated on the scene of the crime, you would think a broken nose would be plainly evident in those videos, but there’s no — it doesn’t appear to be like that at all.

And so, George Zimmerman’s attorneys are pointing to the police report and saying he was treated. They’re also saying the video was grainy, even though Sanford Police Department admits that it recently installed state-of-the-art surveillance cameras — that’s why the picture is as clear as it is.

So, there’s very little there to back this up. But, the investigation is ongoing, obviously.

SPITZER: Look, obviously this it’s ongoing, and nobody should really — as much as you may want to jump to conclusions, we all know you shouldn’t do that. But is there any other medical evidence, any other reports of treatment, x-rays, anything tangible to support the sort of vicious fight that the Zimmerman family would have people believe occurred before the shooting?

KROLL: No, there’s not. And, if anything, the anecdotal evidence that’s coming out — for instance, this funeral director suggests that this wasn’t a violent life-or-death sort of battle that George Zimmerman’s father and his attorney have suggested. Eyewitnesses have said there was an altercation. However, the funeral director — as you showed — said that Trayvon Martin’s body was in pristine shape apart from, obviously, a gun wound to the chest.

SPITZER: Right.

KROLL: There were no lacerations on his hands or knuckles from, say, beating someone’s head into the ground or breaking their nose — punching them with enough force to break their nose.

It’s also worth noting that if George Zimmerman’s head had been bashed into the ground enough, it’s common practice for EMTs to usually secure the neck, and to put something around that, in case you’ve sustained some kind of injury to your neck, and that’s not the case in the video either, which, again, kind of undermines this argument that George Zimmerman was fighting for his life and acted in self defense.

SPITZER: Now, the autopsy report has not yet been released. Am I correct about that?

KROLL: Right. It’s still sealed, and it will not be unsealed until the investigations into Trayvon’s death are over or are inactive. And, obviously, that’s not happening anytime soon.

SPITZER: But, it has been examined, one presumes, by the police department and prosecutors and those who are trying to determine what happened. Is there any word that is sort of crept out about whether that that autopsy report, and what it reveals about Trayvon, what that says terms of — and you alluded to the fact — no evidence of lacerations on his part. Anything on the autopsy report we should look for or expect to hear?

KROLL: The autopsy report is the one bit of key information that has not been leaked the media yet. It has been kept very close, very guarded. We don’t have any information on it at this point. Obviously, the direction of the gun wound, any kind of evidence that was gathered at the scene of the crime, we don’t have that from the autopsy.

It’s also worth noting that there have been a lot of — there’s been a lot of criticism about how the investigation and how the evidence collecting at the scene of the killing was handled. This is both from eyewitnesses and from other authorities who have publicly criticized the detectives and the cops for, really, just a shoddy investigation, and you know, that could come into play here as well.

SPITZER: Andy, real quick, ’cause time is running short — the phone call with the girlfriend, do we yet have the phone records, because you can get down-to-the-second reports that will prove whether they were or were not on the phone during what was supposedly an altercation. That alone will be significant corroboration. Do we yet have those phone records?

KROLL: Authorities say they have the phone records. They are not available to the public yet, because they are a part of the investigation. This is a key discrepancy with George Zimmerman’s father’s account. He says this phone call did not happen. However, this girlfriend has given a sworn statement to authorities that this phone call happened, and describing what Trayvon’s reactions and thoughts were as he was being pursued. So, it is in the legal record, to a degree, and it’s part of an investigation that’s ongoing.

SPITZER: Well, look. We won’t, one presumes, get a tape of that conversation — but if there are records that establish it took place, that alone will be certainly significant, if not — all right.

Andy Kroll, staff writer with Mother Jones, thank you for sharing some of your time with us tonight.

KROLL: Thank you.

Read and download the complete transcript of the March 29, 2012 edition of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

ELIOT SPITZER: But first, the “Sanity Break.” It was on this day in 1929 President Herbert Hoover had a telephone installed in the Oval Office. Phones had been used at the White House since 1878, but Hoover was the first president to use one at his desk.

Every president since Hoover has had a phone at the desk, although it is believed that President George W. Bush is the only one to use it to make crank calls with his friends.

“Time Marches On!”

We begin, as we always do, with jumping robots.

Incorporating the same technology to create — they used to create Blake Griffin, Boston Dynamics has designed the Sand Flea, a robot that can jump up to 30 feet in the air. And just like a cat, it always lands on its feet. Or wheels, that is.

We check in with sports. Preseason game between the Orioles and the Phillies — and looks like there’s a hot young prospect who has some good hands. Unfortunately, it’s one of the fans.

When the Phillies’ Carlos Ruiz loses his grip on the bat, it’s this spry young lady who makes the grab.

Finally, we end — as we always do — with Peep Dioramas, and the sixth annual Washington Post Peeps Diorama Contest.

And my personal favorite, the “Romney Family Road Trip“, created by Colleen Canning of Jacksonville, Florida, complete with poor Seamus Romney on top of the car.

But this year’s winner? “Occu-Peep D.C.,” created by Cori Wright of Falls Church, Virginia. Wright established that a Peep is 3.5 percent the size of a person and made her entire Occupy diorama to scale.

Sadly, Mayor Bloomberg is currently assembling a Peep police force to evict them.

“Time Marches On!”

Read and download the complete transcript of the March 29, 2012 edition of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

Read and download the complete transcript of the March 28, 2012 edition of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

Read and download the complete transcript of the March 28, 2012 edition of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

Read and download the complete transcript of the March 28, 2012 edition of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

But the breaking news on the fifth story on the “Countdown” — revealed tonight, the first video of the shooter the night all this happened.

The police surveillance video showing George Zimmerman apparently having just been taken to Sanford’s police headquarters in handcuffs — though not under arrest, obviously — the night of this shooting.

More importantly, perhaps, what this video does not seem to show. It does not seem to show a man who was in a life-or-death struggle with an aggressive teenager who had just left him bloodied and crying on a neighborhood sidewalk. Even if we assume that he has been to a hospital and been cleaned up there — and that would be only be an assumption — George Zimmerman is not having trouble standing, talking, or walking throughout the video from ABC News, which runs, in full, about a minute and a half.

Seventeen-year-old Trayvon Martin, of course, had just been shot to death by Zimmerman on February 26th. Zimmerman claiming that Martin attacked him, and he fired in fear of his life.

The Miami Herald today reporting that Sanford police wanted charges filed and went to the state prosecutor for the county of Seminole, Norman Wolfinger, who said no — or said nothing — and so there was no arrest, as there has been yet no arrest.

This, even though the state’s new special prosecutor described all this to The Miami Herald today and after the local police described the shooting in an official report as, “Homicide, neglect manslaughter.”

Special prosecutor Angela Corey telling The Miami Herald, “The police went to the state attorney with a request that charges be filed. The state attorney empanelled a grand jury, but before anything else could be done, the governor stepped in and asked us to pick it up in midstream.” Corey replacing the State Attorney Wolfinger last week.

Sanford Homicide Detective Chris Serino, who first investigated the case told NBC News he was, “Looking forward to the truth coming out.”

Zimmerman friend and defender Joe Oliver giving the truth according to George Zimmerman, insisting in interviews that he knew in his heart George had been in a life-or-death struggle.

(Excerpt from video clip) JOE OLIVER: We know that if we weren’t sitting here talking about George shooting Trayvon, we’d talking about Trayvon shooting George.

OLBERMANN: Trayvon Martin’s father Tracy Martin saying police described his son’s last moments very differently.

(Excerpt from video clip) MARTIN: Zimmerman was able to unholster his weapon and fire one shot, and Trayvon fell back and said, “You got me.”

OLBERMANN: Martin adding that put his b.s. detector into high gear.

(Excerpt from video clip) MARTIN: That was bull. I was more saying to myself, “No way.” At that point I knew that there was something terribly wrong.

OLBERMANN: And there was, and is.

In Washington, the other dynamic continuing to play out — Illinois Congressman Bobby Rush making that point in a speech on racial profiling in the House.

(Excerpt from video clip) RUSH: Just because someone wears a hoodie does not make them a hoodlum. The Bible teaches us, Mr. Speaker, he has shown your man —

(Excerpt from video clip) JOHN BOEHNER: The member will disband. The chair must remind the member of Clause Five of Rule 17. The member is out of order —

OLBERMANN: Apparently, Congressman Rush violated Clause Five of Rule 17, prohibiting the wearing of hats in the chamber when the House is in session.

But Trayvon Martin’s parents, in any event, grateful for his assistance.

(Excerpt from video clip) MARTIN: I would like to commend Congressman Rush for pleading our case.

(Excerpt from video clip) SYBRINA FULTON: Some people don’t quite get it. Some people don’t quite understand what it’s all about. It’s almost like they’re an ostrich, like they have their head buried the sand.

OLBERMANN: But some people do get it, like these protesters in Memphis, Tennessee, today beginning their march for Trayvon Martin outside the historic Lorraine Motel where Martin Luther King was shot and killed in 1968.

Other protesters in Charleston, South Carolina last night, with a candlelight vigil for Trayvon Martin.

And students at Howard University asking anyone who might run from a black man in a hoodie one question —

(Excerpt from video clip) MAN: Do I look suspicious?

(Excerpt from video clip) MAN #2: Do I look suspicious?

(Excerpt from video clip) MAN #3: Well, contrary to what America has led me to believe, all young, black males are not suspicious. We don’t deserve to be harassed, murdered, prosecuted, or denied protections of the justice system all because America believes that we are suspicious.

OLBERMANN: That last of those statements came from Howard Kandhai, alumnae of Howard’s Schools of Business and Law.

Hoodies, apparently becoming magical garments that can drive men mad, not to mention this tweet from the Obama campaign on Tuesday, which read, “Let everyone know whose team you’re on for 2012, with today’s merchandise steal, the college-style hooded sweatshirt.” An Obama campaign official telling Business Insider they sold hoodies in the 2008 election as well.

But to Fox Business host Lou Dobbs and his guest, a deplorable man named Dr. Keith Ablow, they found it all suspicious.

(Excerpt from video clip) LOU DOBBS: So why would his campaign suddenly advertise hooded sweatshirts in the middle of a national controversy, in part created by the president himself.

(Excerpt from video clip) KEITH ABLOW: It’s irresistible for this president to enter the fray when there seems to be an opportunity for a kind of furious splitting.

OLBERMANN: A controversy created by the president — as if he fired a gun.

Fox, blaming Mr. Obama for splitting the country on racial lines again on the Fox and Friends program today — former Justice Department Attorney J. Christian Adams reading obscurely into the president’s comment last week, that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin.

(Excerpt from video clip) J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS: No president in our country’s history would have injected himself into a criminal matter using racial code like Barack Obama did.

OLBERMANN: For more on the Trayvon Martin case, and today’s extraordinary developments, I’m joining by Corey Dade, national correspondent with NPR digital news. Thanks for your time tonight, sir.

COREY DADE: Hi, Keith.

OLBERMANN: This new video, am I right that it’s relevant here in a way that, perhaps, nothing else has been in this case, at least what we’ve seen publicly — more for what it conclusively does not show than what it does? And where is the man who thought he was being killed, who had to resort to mortal force? Even if he has been to the hospital, how is he in such good shape afterwards?

DADE: Well, I guess we’ll have to find out. It seems like, Keith, every day there is a new bit of information or detail that’s coming out that may be actually contradictory to what we knew the day before. I think, in this case, what we’re probably going to see is this get admitted to evidence, because — because when we look at this case in its totality, there is not a lot of physical evidence at the scene. I think that’s been pretty much attested to. So, this may really become material.

OLBERMANN: We don’t know, do we? Whether or not he was taken to the hospital or doctor or to somewhere — just to a sink where he washed up between the altercation and when that video would have been shot at headquarters?

DADE: Yeah, I don’t think that has been established yet. I think this is — you’re asking the questions that Trayvon Martin’s family is asking constantly. What was, for lack of a better phrase, the chain of custody from the time the police arrived at the scene to the moment that they released George Zimmerman from their custody?

OLBERMANN: This ties in, I think — in some way — to the revelation from the new special prosecutor Angela Corey who said that Sanford police wanted the charges filed against Zimmerman that night or early on, and the state prosecutor in Seminole County said no. Is that the first time we’ve heard that timeline floated? Has anybody been able to verify this new version of the story?

DADE: Well, obviously, The Miami Herald put this out — reported this earlier today. And I think that timeline is exactly the thing that the Trayvon family lawyers have been asking about. And it speaks to, again, you know — the reasons why the Seminole County prosecutor was removed from the case.

OLBERMANN: The natural question here, I guess —here we know of prosecutors, we know of D.A.s who make these tough adjustment calls in tough cases and say, “All right, send the police out.” It’s the stock material of every TV cop drama. But the other way around? How often do the police seek the state prosecutor’s consent, as the chief representative of the state in their county and then defer to him when he says no in terms of an arrest?

DADE: Well, I think what’s usually standard — obviously, I’m not an attorney, but I’ve covered plenty of crimes — I think what’s usually standard, the police have a role of arresting. The prosecutors have a role of bringing charges, and usually they confer. And if a prosecutor doesn’t believe that they can make the case, then sometimes that may affect the decision of a police department to arrest. And I think here, again, this gets to one of the big unanswered questions — what really was the litmus test that made the police decide not to arrest?

OLBERMANN: Mr. Zimmerman’s defender, Joe Oliver — who used to be a newscaster — apparently hasn’t talked with him as one might think, given how much time he’s been on cable news in the past week. He said today that if Zimmerman had not shot Trayvon Martin, Trayvon Martin would have shot him. This is an attempt to paint the picture of the dead man as a teen guilty of assault, capable of homicide. Who is Joe Oliver, and where is he getting this stuff?

DADE: You know, I think this — you know, Joe Oliver has become sort of the person of the moment that has shifted a little bit of attention away from Zimmerman. And so, now he’s taking fire, as we’ve seen, in the last 24 hours. He’s taking fire from supporters of Trayvon Martin, from all sides, questioning his relationship with Zimmerman, questioning what he knows about the case.

One thing that was interesting that came out when I was talking to Trayvon Martin’s family lawyers today, is that with Joe Oliver talking with such specifics about what he says happened in the case, it raises the question of whether or not Joe Oliver will get a visit paid to him by Corey’s investigators.

OLBERMANN: All right, one other thing here — the court documents that have shown that George Zimmerman had his problems with the law, including an arrest for resisting an officer with violence. It was reduced when he entered an alcohol-education program, and also the civil motions regarding domestic violence from a former fiancée. Are we getting any better picture of who this man is, you know, amid all the traffic about who — and the noise about who Trayvon Martin was?

DADE: I think it’s been inevitable that we were going to have that, just like we’re getting more information coming out about Trayvon’s history — for example, his suspension because they found marijuana residue in his bag — in his book bag —  in school.

And with Zimmerman, I think we’re going to continue to see, I know people in my profession are going to continue to dig into his past, and see what they can glean about who this man is, especially considering he’s, you know, keeping about the lowest profile possible right now.

OLBERMANN: Corey Dade, national correspondent with NPR Digital News. Corey, thanks for your time tonight.

DADE: Thanks, Keith.

Read and download the complete transcript of the March 28, 2012 edition of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

In our third story on the “Countdown” — the Supreme Court remained deeply divided today when it grappled with the question of “severability” — whether the Affordable Care Act could survive if its key provision, the individual mandate, was to be struck down.

Stripping that mandate, the administration argues, would eliminate other vital provisions — including one banning insurers from turning away people with pre-existing conditions. Across the bench, Justices expressed their concern for the bill’s 450 remaining provisions.

(Excerpt from audio cliP) RUTH BADER GINSBURG: Why should we say, “It’s a choice between a wrecking operation, which is what you are requesting, or a salvage job?” And the more conservative approach would be salvage, rather than throwing out everything.

OLBERMANN: Justice Kagan echoed Justice Ginsburg’s sentiment.

(Excerpt from audio clip) ELENA KAGAN: Is half a loaf better than no loaf? And on something like the exchanges, it seems, to me, a perfect example where half a loaf is better than no loaf.

OLBERMANN: Justice Scalia was not shy about where his interests lie. He took the all-or-nothing approach.

(Excerpt from audio clip) SCALIA: My approach would say, “If you take the heart out of the statute, the statute’s gone.” That enables Congress to do what it wants in the usual fashion.

OLBERMANN: But Justice Kennedy wondered if a partisan Congress would be capable of sensibly reforming the bill.

(Excerpt from audio clip) ANTHONY KENNEDY: Is that the real Congress or a hypothetical Congress?

OLBERMANN: Meantime, White House officials say any speculation about the court’s decision is premature.

(Excerpt from video clip) JOSH EARNEST: There is no contingency plan that’s in place. We’re focused on implementing the law, and we are confident that the law is constitutional.

OLBERMANN: Joining me now for more on this final day of the arguments in front of the SCOTUS, Jonathan Turley, George Washington University law professor, constitutional law expert, and “Countdown” contributor. Jon, again, great thanks for your time tonight.

JONATHAN TURLEY: Hi, Keith.

OLBERMANN: So, we’re back to where we were yesterday — severability. Did the questions from the justices tell us anything about what a ruling of unconstitutionality would mean, in practical terms, for the entirety of health-care reform?

TURLEY: Well, it broke along familiar lines. I mean, you have the conservatives that — for the most part — suggested that they thought that, if you cut the heart out of the bill, the whole bill should die, and the liberals suggesting that we could still salvage some of this.

I was a bit surprised, quite frankly, by the views of some of the conservatives. This really does go against the grain of past cases. The court has a longstanding tradition to minimize the degree to which they overturn federal law. I think part of the problem here is that the thing is so immense that some of the justices said, you know, “How are we really supposed to figure out what can live without the individual mandate and what cannot?”

OLBERMANN: Our friend Jeff Toobin says the questions alone suggest that the whole thing is over, that health-care reform will be fully overturned. What are your thoughts about his conclusions?

TURLEY: I wouldn’t go that far, quite frankly. Kennedy is still in play, although I think that the administration lost an opportunity, in these arguments, to give him a viable way to limit a ruling, to make it more appealing to him, so that Federalism itself did not appear to be on the chopping block. I think they lost that opportunity, but Kennedy himself can still come up with that type of limiting principle.

But, you know, if you take his comments as a whole, they seem to suggest that he is leaning to the right of the court, and that would be deadly for the individual mandate.

On the issue of severability, Kennedy is very much in play. I don’t see Kennedy clearly indicating that he would kill the entire bill. Part of this is due to a mistake by the administration and the Democrats. They chose not to put a severability clause into the bill. When I looked at this bill before it was passed, I asked about that. It was a very noticeable decision. And it seemed to be a game of chicken that they were playing, that they wanted to give these judges the sticker shock of — if you take down the individual mandate, the entire act will be torched.

Well, you know, the problem is that a game of chicken can be deadly. And what these conservative justices were saying today is, “We’ll torch the whole darn thing.”

OLBERMANN: Well, there’s the political calculation, too. They wouldn’t have gotten some of the support from the conservative Democrats, had they not done that and, obviously, the, you know, the entire health-care industry would have held people hostage if there had not been an automatic or a forced buy-in, so there was that, too.

TURLEY: Yeah. I think that’s right. I mean, there’s very unpredictable political aspects to this. I mean, I’m not too — I’ve always said I’m not too sure what would be worse for the administration, politically, to win this case or to lose it. You know, the  — but I’m pretty sure that having part of the act survive might not be the best thing for the administration, because that individual mandate really was needed to make this financially viable. And when you take that away, there’s going to be these ripple effects. We don’t really know how much of this act could survive without Congress having to step in and directly appropriating that missing income.

OLBERMANN: Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, “Countdown” contributor who has agreed to stick with us for a recap of the legal implications of that Zimmerman video we showed you at the top of the hour. So, we’ll be back to you in about ten minutes, Jon. Thanks again.

TURLEY: All right. Thanks, Keith.

Read and download the complete transcript of the March 28, 2012 edition of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

In our fourth story — that endorsement can have a negative effect, if it conjures negative images of the candidate. Say a casual use of the term — puppies.

(Excerpt from video clip) BUSH: Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, I mean, here are a couple of sick puppies.

OLBERMANN: Apparently, that President Bush has a warped idea of what makes someone a sick puppy, because — despite Romney’s handling of Seamus — Bush 41 is planning to formally induce — endorse, that was a Freudian slip — endorse Mitt Romney tomorrow.

While Romney continues to win over the Republican establishment, he seems to have the same problem continuing with the general public. According to a recent Washington Post poll, half of America has an unfavorable opinion of him. But Romney did his best to seem likeable in an appearance on “The Tonight Show.”

(Excerpt from video clip) LENO: Did you ever think we’d be talking about porn? I mean, with all the other things in this election.

(Excerpt from video clip) ROMNEY: I didn’t know we were talking about porn.

OLBERMANN: With Leno, Romney tried not to look past the primary. It appears, though, Republican voters are.

According to a recent CNN poll, registered Republicans are getting tired of the race. Forty percent said Santorum should drop out. Sixty percent said Gingrich and Ron Paul should go, and it looks like they may get their wish — at least with Gingrich. Today, his campaign announced it would begin limiting campaign events and laying off one third of their staff. Just remember, as Gingrich says, he and Ronald Reagan created 16 million jobs.

But, that may be a symptom of problems, not a cause. According to reports, Sheldon Adelson — whose $16.5 million in donations has single-handedly kept the Gingrich campaign afloat — is expected to make multimillion-dollar donations to Crossroads GPS. And, in a private dinner at his house with members of the RNC and other Republican fund-raisers, Adelson also indicated he was ready to begin donating to a Romney super PAC.

But Mr. Gingrich has a backup plan.

(Excerpt from video clip) BILL O’REILLY: But you don’t have any money. You’re going to spend your own money?

(Excerpt from video clip) NEWT GINGRICH: If necessary.

OLBERMANN: For more on that, let’s bring national political reporter for Politico, David Cantanese into the equation. David, thanks for your time tonight.

DAVID CANTANESE: Good evening, Keith.

OLBERMANN: What happened to Sheldon Adelson’s bottomless buffet of money?

CANTANESE: Well, he spent $16.5 million and got two wins in two Southern states for Newt Gingrich, and I think, you know, he said, “That’s about it.” But, you know, more seriously to the point — you know, Republican voices have been saying that there needs to be a shift away from, you know — Newt Gingrich, some of these underlying candidates — into the House and Senate, which is going to be a huge battleground in 2012.

You have got George Will, the prominent columnist, saying Republican donors should be focusing all of their attention there. And that’s where American Crossroads — this Karl Rove super PAC — is going to play heavily. They’re going to spend a lot of money in these states that could control — could determine control of the Senate, and that’s going to have to do a lot with whether, you know, if President Obama’s even elected, whether he’s going to have an agenda to put forward in a second term.

OLBERMANN: The endorsement by George H.W. Bush of Romney — does it mean anything to voters by sense of a sort of secondhand extension of Reagan? Or is this just a continuation of the Republican establishment kind of timidly lining up behind Mitt Romney?

CANTANESE: You know, I would say “B.” It matters to establishment and it matters to the media narrative that, “Look! Here’s another huge Republican figure saying, ‘Get on board. This train is moving away with or without you, Newt and Rick.’”

Romney now has two out of the three Bushes. I don’t think you’ll see the most recent Bush endorse — the most recent President Bush endorse, but you know, he got Senator Jim DeMint to say favorable things — he got majority whip Kevin McCarthy, another person in leadership here in Washington to endorse him. So, I’m sure he’s got some more, you know, lined up privately just waiting to come public, if he is able to win a few more primaries.

This is sort of the endorsement portion to say, you know, “Rick Santorum, it’s going to be a no-go, and no convention fight.”

OLBERMANN: Are they going to get him endorsed sufficiently that Mitt Romney doesn’t have to say anything between now and November? Because there was another conference call today, he was trying to connect with voters in Wisconsin, and he laughingly told this story about his dad who closed an American Motors plant in Michigan and moved everybody to Wisconsin, and the punchline was there’s a marching band participating in a campaign event for his father, the governor of Michigan at one point, and they only knew the Wisconsin fight song, as he tells the story.

And then, the quote was, “So, every time they would start playing ‘On Wisconsin, On Wisconsin,’ my dad’s political people would jump up and down and try to get them to stop because they didn’t want people in Michigan to be reminded that my had dad moved production to Wisconsin.”

This is another one. This is like the “I need a garage elevator for my cars” story. Is there no way to stop this man from injuring himself?

CANTANESE: He should have stuck with, “The trees are the right height.”

OLBERMANN: Yeah, seriously.

CANTANESE: You know, he just has an awkward sense about him. And this is, I think, the bigger problem for Mitt Romney going forward. It’s not where he is on the issues.

I mean, right now, the polls show most Americans are opposed to the health-care law. That’s the position that he holds. That’s not his barrier to defeating President Obama, I don’t think. It’s this sort of weirdness, lack of connectivity, you know, unable to deliver a sense of humor that comes across as authentic.

You know, in this instance, you have a Democratic senator from Michigan come out with a statement very strongly saying, “Don’t joke about job loss in our state, even if it was decades ago.” So, it just gave immediate fodder to his opponents in another state that he wants to play well in in the general, and now, you know, he’s made this sort of gaffe.

OLBERMANN: Isn’t that funny? Dad liked to fire people, too.

David Cantanese, national political reporter for Politico. As always, great thanks for your time, sir.

CANTANESE: Thanks, Keith.

Read and download the complete transcript of the March 28, 2012 edition of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

KEITH OLBERMANN: First, the “Sanity Break,” and on or about this date in 1999, Tony Ball, the chief executive of Fox Sports Net — Rupert Murdoch’s attempt to break ESPN’s hold on cable sports — decided to move back from Los Angeles to London to run some of Murdoch’s properties there.

Ball — whose game plan included a five-year fight just to get his “Fox Sports News” within shouting distance of ESPN’s “Sports Center” in the ratings — was replaced by a small group of executives who decided they needed to increase the ratings immediately. The changes they made in an attempting to do so caused “Fox Sports News” to crash. It would be off the air less than three years later.

It was estimated that just this one program lost Murdoch at least $125 million, seven million of which went to me — the last eight hundred thousand dollars of which he paid me to do nothing while hoping I would quit.

Today, Bloomberg News reports Fox is planning a new cable sports net — Rupert Murdoch’s attempt to break ESPN’s hold on cable sports.

Rupert, give me a buzz and I’ll tell you where to send me another seven million dollars and which rat hole to pour the other $118 million down.

“Time Marches On!”

The problem was, we used to lead with stories like this — Israeli basketball, with Maccabi Tel Aviv versus Bnei HaSharon.

Game’s off to a slow start, until a new player gets in there.

Maccabi would go on to win the game, and the cat went on to sign a ten-day contract with the New York Knicks — Kevin?

To the Internets, and there’s nothing more thrilling than the rush of skiing. And nothing more relaxing, as this little guy can tell you.

After a long day out on the slopes, Bodee was ready for a nap, but he didn’t want to wait to get back to the lodge.

Tune in next time as Bodee tries to sleep while kite surfing.

Finally, as if you didn’t already know this, the weekend was the occasion of the U.S. National Sport Stacking Championships in Colorado Springs.

And the Under-14 team, “Wills and Not Wills,” took the world record in the timed 3-6-3 relay. That’s the world record for any age group.

The team will next be traveling to Germany in April for the world championships, where they will compete for the holy grail of this sport — the Robert Stack Trophy.

“Time Marches On!”

Read and download the complete transcript of the March 28, 2012 edition of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

Read and download the complete transcript of the March 27, 2012 edition of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

Read and download the complete transcript of the March 27, 2012 edition of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

Read and download the complete transcript of the March 27, 2012 edition of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

And now, in our third story, Mitt Romney is something new in the eyes of Rick Santorum — a guy with whom he’d be willing to share the ticket. In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, Santorum spoke supportively about the possibility of a Romney nomination. And he apparently decided that being second fiddle to the worst Republican in the country was better than going home.

(Excerpt from video clip) DAVID BRODY: If he, for some reason, asks you to be the vice presidential candidate on his ticket — I know, after is all said and done — would you even consider it? Would you consider it?

(Excerpt from video clip) SANTORUM: Of course. I mean — look, I would do, in this race, as I always say — this is the most important race in our country’s history. And so, I’m going to do everything I can.

OLBERMANN: Of course, no one thinks Romney would choose Santorum as a running mate, unless he hopes that Santorum might help assuage fears about his — Romney’s — religion.

But it turns out most Republicans are not even sure what Santorum’s religion is. According to exiting polls conducted by Edison Research, only 42 percent of Catholic Republicans know that Santorum is Catholic. Eleven percent of Catholic Republicans — 35 percent of white evangelical Republicans — think he is an evangelical.

But, there does appear to be some positive buzz for Santorum. His outburst over the weekend drew support from one Republican whose own experiences with the media are — as is her own career, in her own mind — legendary.

(Excerpt from video clip) SARAH PALIN: Santorum’s response to that liberal-leftist-in-the-tank-for-Obama, press character really revealed some of Rick Santorum’s character. And it was good, and it was strong and it was about time. So, when I heard Rick Santorum’s response I was like, “Well, welcome to my world, Rick, and good on ya.”

OLBERMANN: I love Julianne Moore.

Let’s bring in Ken Vogel, chief investigative reporter for Politico. Ken, good evening.

KEN VOGEL: Hey, Keith.

OLBERMANN: Santorum’s willing to run with the “worst Republican to run with on health-care reform?” I mean, I know George H.W. Bush was able to come back from calling Reagan’s policies in the ’80 primaries “voodoo economics” to be his vice president. But, how could Rick Santorum say these two things in the same millennium?

VOGEL: Well, he can say the one — and he has said repeatedly that Mitt Romney is the worst candidate to run against President Obama on health care. And, that’s a good point. It’s a valid one, and one that really underscores the premise of his candidacy, which is to raise concerns about Mitt Romney among conservatives — among social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, evangelical conservatives.

So, to hear him say now that he would be willing consider running with them, is, at best, discordant and, at worst, really undercuts the whole idea of his candidacy.

OLBERMANN: Is it, practically speaking, moot? I mean, would Romney ever consider Santorum?

VOGEL: Well, I mean — on paper, Santorum might not be a bad running mate for Mitt Romney. He would have appeal in some of the sectors of the Republican base that Mitt Romney is sort of lacking in appeal — among those evangelicals, like you said, tea partiers, even. And, let’s face it, he also knows how to deliver an attack line, and that is really a key thing for a vice presidential candidate to be able to do.

However, the fact that he continues to deliver these attack lines against Mitt Romney and drag out the process — the longer it goes, the less likely it is that Mitt Romney would even consider him.

OLBERMANN: Plus, would not what he has said to this point be, again, sort of — we’ve now had a list of maybe 317 of these — ready-made commercials for the Obama re-election campaign — would it simply be Rick Santorum discussing Mitt Romney, and then, it says “Romney/Santorum 2012?”

VOGEL: Yeah, that’s right. I mean, he’s the guy waving around the Etch A Sketch and going after Mitt Romney for being out of touch. In some ways, it’s the same arguments that the Democrats will make, so it’s nice having the running mate making them for you, and — obviously — that diminishes the chances that Rick Santorum would be selected.

In addition, he’s got this whole stockpile of sort of fringy affiliations and things that he said along the way, that — surprisingly — Mitt Romney, to my mind, kind of laid off on of late, which suggests that he doesn’t think that Santorum is as much of a threat.

OLBERMANN: Something else — the open mic story of the president and Medvedev, after which Mitt Romney called Russia, “without question, our number one geopolitical foe,” which was news — probably relative to North Korea and Iran and China, perhaps, if you even want to look at it in those terms.

President Medvedev responded, “It’s 2012, not the mid 1970s. No matter what party a candidate represents, he has to take the current state of affairs into account.”

Is that as much of a slap to Mitt Romney as it sounds like? Or is that something, in fact, that Mitt Romney can take as a bloody shirt and hold up to his supporters and go, “Look, I got insulted by the president of Russia?”

VOGEL: Well, he’s certainly trying, and the fact that he thinks that Russia is the number one geopolitical threat does, in some ways, hearken back to an earlier era. We talked to foreign policy experts, they say that there really isn’t a number one geopolitical nation-state threat like there was during the Cold War in the form of Soviet Russia.

But this also underscores the challenge for any Republican presidential candidate running against President Obama — or really, any sitting president — which is that the president of the United States, by definition, has this vast foreign-policy experience. Even if he didn’t have it when he was running in 2008, he has it now, and there aren’t a whole lot of openings — with the death of Osama Bin Laden, and some of the other foreign-policy successes — to go after President Obama on foreign policy.

OLBERMANN: Governor Romney can see Russia from his split-level, four-vehicle garage, which brings us to the subject of his split-level, four-car garage. He has hired a lobbyist to hire — lobby the officials in San Diego so he can build this split-level, four-vehicle garage and it has a car lift that can transport automobiles between floors. Is there a point at which somebody taps him on the shoulder and says, “Ixnay on the oneymay things until the — after the campaign?”

VOGEL: Well, this has really been a long-running project for the Romneys and, you know, people have already had these conversations or, at least, that’s a part of his thinking — because, in the run up to his campaign, he got rid of a few properties and tried to scale back his lifestyle. But, obviously, this is something that the Romneys care deeply about, and just plays in to this narrative that this is a super-rich guy who just has no clue how regular people are living.

OLBERMANN: Our vehicles need elevators.

Chief political investigative reporter for Politico, Ken Vogel. Always a pleasure, Ken. Thanks for your time.

VOGEL: Thank you, Keith.

Read and download the complete transcript of the March 27, 2012 edition of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

In our fourth story on the “Countdown” — the Court split along ideological lines in the second of three days of arguments over the constitutionality of parts of the health-care reform plan. Anthony Kennedy joined more conservative Justices Scalia, Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts in challenging Solicitor General Donald Verrilli over the heart of the health-care law — the individual mandate.

The Chief Justice led the charge:

(Excerpt from video clip) ROBERTS: So, can the government require you to buy a cellphone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services?

OLBERMANN: And Scalia continued where Roberts left off:

(Excerpt from video clip) SCALIA: Everybody has to buy food, sooner or later, so you define the market as food. Therefore, everybody is in the market. Therefore, you can make people buy broccoli.

OLBERMANN: You can’t have sophistry on the Supreme Court. He went further, questioning the mandate’s constitutionality.

(Excerpt from video clip) SCALIA: The federal government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers. It is supposed to be a government of limited powers. And that’s what all this questioning has been about. What — what is left? If the government can do this, what — what else can it not do?

OLBERMANN: Meanwhile, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg signaled her support of the law, saying that a broader health-care market reduces cost for those participating.

(Excerpt from video clip) RUTH BADER GINSBURG: People who don’t participate in this market are making it much more expensive for the people who do.

OLBERMANN: Joining me now to try to help us figure out what went on today, Jonathan Turley — George Washington University law professor, constitutional law expert, and “Countdown” contributor. Jon, thanks for your time again tonight.

JONATHAN TURLEY: Hi, Keith.

OLBERMANN: It seemed, yesterday, that the justices were not heading towards a ruling that might find all or part of this unconstitutional. Today, it looked like a completely different court with a completely different case. Give me your assessment on what happened today.

TURLEY: Well, you know — and we talked about this yesterday — I mentioned that, really, the two justices that were being watched most closely by most of us were Justice Kennedy, for the obvious swing vote, but also Justice Scalia. Many people did not realize that Scalia had said things in past cases that made his vote somewhat in play. and I think that the administration was trying to see if they could nudge him to stay consistent with that prior statement.

What we saw today is that Scalia does not appear to be in play, which means that it’s a greater burden for the administration. They really need Kennedy, and Kennedy’s questions seemed quite skeptical if not, at points, hostile. He really hit all the themes that were coming out of the briefs challenging the law, and he really did not get an answer to those questions by the solicitor general.

OLBERMANN: Reading what I was able to read on this today, it seemed as if the solicitor general did not have a good day, at least in terms of the armchair quarterbacks. Was he ineffective? Was — were — in fact, there was several assessments that the liberal-leaning justices almost took the case out of his hands and began to argue it for him.

TURLEY: Well, I have to say, you know, I feel very sympathetic for him. I’ve been in appellate arguments, and God knows there’s few arguments that are — have this much pressure. So, you have to be built of titanium not to be a bit flustered. But the justices did seem to come to his aid a lot and, at points, they seemed to be more clear in their answers.

I think that the problem with the performance by the solicitor general is a problem that the Justice Department as a whole has had. The Justice Department has not covered itself in glory in this litigation. They changed their position on a number of issues, on the trial appellate level. That’s never a good idea in a major case. And they lack a certain degree of clarity in their position.

And when Kennedy is asking you, “Give me a limiting principle, let me feel comfortable with this,” there really wasn’t an answer coming back, saying, “Here’s a way we can thread that needle.”

This was your one opportunity, in that sense. You know, Keith — most of these justices aren’t swayed by the oral argument. In this case, you basically had a court of one, and whether you could give Kennedy a reason to feel comfortable with voting in favor of with the law. I think Kennedy left without being given that comfort factor.

OLBERMANN: Clarify it for us again — could they still wind up stripping out just the mandate from this? Would the rest of the reform remain in some measurable way, and what’s the problem with just stripping out the mandate, since the mandate was the raw meat that was thrown to the insurance industry?

TURLEY: Yeah, I mean, that’s going to be the issue — one of the two issues for tomorrow — which is called severability. There’s a very weird thing in this law. Most of these laws have what’s called a severability clause, that are — that is designed for this. Virtually all the major laws say, “If any part is found unconstitutional, the rest can stand.”

For some reason, the administration or the Democrats decided to take out the severability clause, so this law doesn’t have that provision.

So the question now is — if they take out the individual mandate, is it so important to the scheme that they might as well strike down the whole law? And it’s a problem of the administration’s making. They chose not to put in that severability clause.

It is also a problem that previously, they suggested that it was not severable. It was sort of a sticker-shock approach. They were told — the trial judge, you know, “If you turned down the individual mandate, the whole thing goes down in flames.” And then they changed that position later and said, “You know what? Actually, you can take it out and the whole thing won’t go down in flames.”

Well, that’s what I mean by a lack of clarity. At points, you sort of wonder whether the public should get a new lawyer, not for the solicitor general. But in terms of how this was presented in the courts, it was not the finest hour for the Justice Department.

OLBERMANN: Doesn’t sound like it’s going in the textbooks, at least not in a positive sense.

Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law and “Countdown” contributor. As always, Jon, thanks again for helping us make some sense.

TURLEY: Thank you, Keith.

Read and download the complete transcript of the March 27, 2012 edition of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

The fifth story on the “Countdown” — Trayvon Martin was shot February 26. Character assassination, much of it from leaks that appear to be from the investigators, began over the weekend. Martin reportedly sprayed graffiti on a school locker and was said to be found carrying a screwdriver and women’s jewelry, security officers supposedly calling the screwdriver “a possible burglary tool.” But Miami Dade police saying the jewelry had not been reported stolen.

Martin family attorney Ben Crump pointing out the leaks so far serve to weaken the case against the shooter.

(Excerpt from video clip) CRUMP: If the police want to leak information, why don’t they leak the witnesses who say they saw him pursuing Trayvon? But they have only did things that are beneficial to Mr. Zimmerman’s claim of self defense. And the only reason we can think that — from Day One, they made a decision they were not going to arrest George Zimmerman.

OLBERMANN: That, even though ABC News reporting multiple sources say the lead homicide investigator in the shooting had wanted a different result.

Investigator Chris Serino reportedly recommending George Zimmerman be arrested for manslaughter the night of the shooting. This, after Zimmerman had been questioned for several hours. Serino even filing an affidavit saying he was unconvinced by Zimmerman’s testimony. But State Attorney Norman Wolfinger, who later removed himself from the case, deciding there was insufficient evidence for a conviction. State and federal investigators revisiting that now, and Sanford interim Police Chief Darren Scott refusing to comment on the allegation that those leaks are coming from his department.

(Excerpt from video clip) SCOTT: We are looking into the leak — the so-called leak, if you will — and there is an internal process that’s going to handle that situation. If there’s something that I can bring to you all at a later time, I will. But as of right now, there’s nothing to report on it.

OLBERMANN: Congressional Democrats taking their own look into Trayvon Martin’s killing today. Florida Representative Frederica Wilson, our guest in a few moments, laying out her version of this case:

(Excerpt from video clip) FREDERICA WILSON: Trayvon is the victim of a botched police investigation full of incompetence or intelligent mismanagement. This investigation is laced with racial profiling, lies and murder. Trayvon was hunted, chased, tackled and shot.

OLBERMANN: Trayvon Martin’s parents Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin and the attorney Ben Crump saying race was, indeed, at the heart of the botched investigation.

(Excerpt from video clip) SYBRINA FULTON: Of course my heart is broken, but it breaks even more to know that we have not gotten justice yet and that this man has not been arrested for shooting and killing my son.

(Excerpt from video clip) TRACY MARTIN: I believe he was racially profiled.

(Excerpt from video clip) CRUMP: And we believe the investigation also had racial profiling aspects to it.

OLBERMANN: The family, on Monday, collecting more than two million signatures demanding the arrest of George Zimmerman.

And first lady Michelle Obama praising the national attention devoted to this case:

(Excerpt from video clip) MICHELLE OBAMA: We are just happy that there will be a thorough investigation, that the Justice Department is involved, and it’s also good that the nation is focused on this.

OLBERMANN: Perhaps there are parts of the nation that should focus on something else, starting with Rush Limbaugh, who said this of Zimmerman:

(Excerpt from video clip) LIMBAUGH: He is a self-appointed neighborhood watch commander and he wanted to protect his neighborhood, just got a little overzealous.

OLBERMANN: I’m assuming here that Limbaugh thinks “a lot overzealous” would be mass murderer.

And, Geraldo Rivera of Fox News claiming he was apologizing today for this first of several similar comments.

(Excerpt from video clip) GERALDO RIVERA: I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death as George Zimmerman was.

OLBERMANN: Well, if anybody considers this an apology, here it is, in full: “I apologize to anyone offended what one prominent black conservative called my ‘very practical and potentially life-saving campaign’ urging black and Hispanic parents not to let their children go around wearing hoodies.”

Imagine the scandal if minority kids dared to wear this National Rifle Association hoodie that allows the wearer to conceal a heavy firearm with ease. (Shows advertisement for NRA concealed-weapon hoodie.) 

For more on the latest developments on the Trayvon Martin case, I’m joined by Adam Weinstein, reporter with Mother Jones. Thanks for your time tonight, sir.

ADAM WEINSTEIN: Hi, Keith.

OLBERMANN: The ABC News report that the initial homicide investigation and the investigator who conducted it wanted Zimmerman charged with manslaughter  — do we know why he was not charged?

WEINSTEIN: We can venture a pretty good guess, and I’ll say it in three words: Stand Your Ground, Keith.

The real problem here is the law in Florida and not only the law, but the way it’s been interpreted by the courts. Essentially, a defendant can just argue self defense without really having any kind of proof. They just have to make a plausible case and then the burden shifts over to the prosecution to try and figure out how they can disprove that case, and if they can’t do that, the case gets thrown out, it gets an acquittal.

And frankly, what’s happened is, it’s caused a lot of local police and law enforcers and a lot of local state’s attorneys to just use their discretion and say, “Well, look, if we can’t get a solid conviction probability here, then what’s the point of taking it to trial?”

OLBERMANN: Good issue.

WEINSTEIN: So, there’s a lot of space there.

OLBERMANN: You used the word discretion, which doesn’t seem to have been applied very often in the other meaning of the word in this case. This flurry of leaks  — graffiti, marijuana traces in a bag in a book bag, jewelry that somebody thinks was stolen, even though it hasn’t been linked to any crime  — if that is the worst anybody can find against this poor young man, is the effort really going to rebound on itself? Doesn’t it further the case for his innocence?

WEINSTEIN: Well, you know, innocence on the part of Trayvon Martin is really not the question here.

OLBERMANN: Exactly.

WEINSTEIN: He’s not on trial. The real big issue here  — well, there’s actually two issues.

The first one is  — what are they trying to prove when they make these kinds of leaks? Are they trying to say, somewhere between buying Skittles and then walking over to his father’s girlfriend’s house, he was casing a couple of joints? Not exactly sure point of those kind of leaks were.

The only thing that we can say for sure, right now, is that there is some kind of a serious discipline problem emanating from the Sanford police department. For this kind of stuff to come out, whether or not it’s intentional, they’ve definitely got a couple of house-cleaning issues that they’ve probably got to take care of now.

OLBERMANN: All right, in Washington, the hearing today on Capitol Hill, temperature seems to be rising there  — the charges of racial profiling, of murder, of lying  — does that reflect in part the anger out there in the country and, to that point, are there more protests planned in the immediate future?

WEINSTEIN: Yes, and yes. To be perfectly honest, there’s a whole lot going on in this case that’s giving people cause for anger, and it’s bringing a diverse group of people together to sort of work out these issues.

Obviously, there’s part of a national discussion on race that, I think, has been kind of problematic and sort of, we really haven’t had in an intense sort of way, probably since I was in high school in the mid-90′s, when all of this stuff came to a head.

And you know, you’ve also got the issues of the gun laws that have been pushed for the  — self-defense kind of interpretations. All of these things are combining to really give people cause for concern.

And, of course, there’s the victim-blaming which has just added a new layer that is bringing a bunch of other people out to this issue and getting angry. You know, Pew just had a poll that showed that something like 73 percent of Americans are inclined to think that George Zimmerman should be at least arrested for something. And I think that’s going to continue.

OLBERMANN: The investigation in Florida  — is the assessment now that Governor Scott, if he has not made it a priority already, is doing so  — and what do we infer from the Attorney General of Florida Pam Bondi who said, “What we do know is a 17-year-old boy was walking home and now he’s dead and when you have questions like that, they need to be answered.” There seems to be a sort of cut to the chase there. Is Florida turned on this? Is Florida pushing for an investigation on a major scale?

WEINSTEIN: I think that they’re trying. Rick Scott and Pam Bondi, to be perfectly honest, have a lot on their plates right now.

Last week, he signed a school prayer bill. He signed another bill into law that would drug test state employees. Pam Bondi has been on up the hill trying to fight against Obamacare. And somewhere in there, they started to make Trayvon Martin a priority.

But you know, you do have to question where their priorities are. They’ve up this task force to look at “Stand Your Ground” — all the folks that are on the task force are going to be appointed, or at least selected, by four of the leading conservative, pro-gun Republicans in the state.

So, you do have to question — it’s not that they’ve done nothing, but the things they have done are sort of problematic, and I’m not sure they are going to get the job done or really satisfy Floridians.

OLBERMANN: The Mother Jones reporter Adam Weinstein. Great thanks for your time tonight.

WEINSTEIN: Thanks, Keith.

Read and download the complete transcript of the March 27, 2012 edition of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”