against jerry sandusky are true, that will be for a jury to decide. he likely had a powerful network of enablers, or at the very least countless people who had powerful interests in not believing the allegations against him. yes, tonight that sishlg grew. this is a former home of thomas harmon, retired penn state chief of police. he was living there in 1998. remember that year. today we've learned his neighbor back then, just three doors down was, you guessed it, in the blue house, jerry sandusky. that's jerry sandusky's house there. not only were they neighbors, not only did their kids play and ride bikes together, worshipped at the same church, this one called saint paum's united methodist. neighbors and fellow church members back in 1998 which is when the mother of a boy went to police with a sexual abuse complaint against coach sandusky. according to a grand jury report she says it happened on campus, allegedly touching the boy inappropriately in tur show. the investigation included conversations of the officers talking to sandusky on the phone. when the local d.a. declined to press charges, the chief closed the case. jerry sandusky continued to bring kids on campus and allegedly continued molesting them for years after that. as for the details of why he closed the case, the entire university is exempt from pennsylvania's open records law. former chief harmon, he's not the only one with prior connections to sandusky. there's the judge, allegedly, lesley dutch cot released him on unsecured bail, donated to the second mile charity, no longer handling any sandusky related proceedings. wendell courtney, penn state's legal counsel who served as second mile counsel. he wasnd told that his right hand man being investigated, joe paterno. tim curly was brought into the loop. plenty of people in a position to stop a child molester if that is what he was. given the opportunity, none of them did. there's assistant coach mike mcqueary now on leave. there are new important developments concerning him. his story apparently shifting yet again. he told the grand jury he witnessed jerry sandusky raping a boy in the showers in 2002. according to the grand jury report he first called his dad, then joe paterno, then later tim curly and gary schultz. a few weeks ago he took issue with that account. in an e-mail he claimed, i did stop it, not physically, but made sure it was stopped when i left that locker room. now according to cnn contributor, another story is emerging. she quotes a source with knowledge of what a family friend told the grand jury. this friend sat with and listened to mcqueary as he recounted what he had just seen in the locker room. the friend told grand jurors that mcqueary did not witness any rape. in said she said he heard sex sounds and the shower running and a young boy stuck his head around the corner of the shower stall and looked around at and an adult arm bringing him back. jeff toobin, the fact that there is now this basically third version of what mcqueary may have seen, why are all these conflicting stories if this was testimony given to the grand jury? >> people telecon flikting stories. remember mcqueary has been vilified for not having taken more steps to stop this rape or to report it. it would not be surprising if he describes his role in a swhalt more heroic way. it is also true just in the nature of criminal investigations when people tell their stories multiple times, they tell it in different ways, always a problem for prosecutors. but clearly mcqueary is going to be a difficult witness for the prosecution, maybe still believable, but a witness with problems. >> if he said one thing to police in 2010 but said another thing back in 19 -- in 2002 to this guy who heard his story the first time, that would seem to be a big inconsistency. >> a huge inconsistency. that's part of the problem with the way this thing has been presented so far. they did the summary of the grand jury testimony. they didn't put out what was actually said. the prosecutors did that. there's a whole lot of stuff we don't know about. it's one of the reasons i've railed against this saying, well, there's no kinds of evidence or isn't evidence. until tomorrow we haven't seen anything. we don't know anything that's been cross examined yet. ly tell you, if he's told one story that is dramatically different. if you say on one hand i saw a sex act. on the other hand, i saw somebody who peeked their head out and saw an adult arm, you couldn't get more diametrically opposed. and that's a major problem. >> a major problem not just in the -- whatever evidence there may be against sandusky, but two other people have been arrested. penn state officials basically because of allegedly what mcqueary informed them of. if he didn't inform them he saw a sex act but a more general vague thing, then it seems like the charges against them could be tossed out. >> i don't think what he's saying is that inconsistent. i don't think we're hearing all these different versions. i think we're hearing a lot of pieces of the entire puzzle. i think what we need to look at is what he told the grand jury. that is what he told under oath. >> we don't know what he told the grand jury. >> we have a summary of what he said. >> the summary is by a prosecutor. >> if the summary was so accurate we would have heard this alternate version that somebody testified to the grand jury about. >> which they left out. >> the point is we're going to hear tomorrow. the bottom line is, this is why witnesses of sex crimes don't want to come forward because they become vilified, because they're scrutinized. mike mccreary is just as much a victim of sandusky as anyone else. >> why are you a victim if you saw in one hand i saw a sex act, somebody has been arrested and two guys have also been arrested for not reporting. what if he didn't see it. >> what about the other ten kids. >> i don't see how mcqueary is a victim at all. here is a grown man who is seeing at least very clear evidence, if not actual evidence of a child being raped and all he does is tell his daddy. i have no sympathy for him. >> he did more than that. >> now it sounds like all he heard was slapping sounds which he interpreted as one thing and didn't see anything, but saw this boy peek his head around. >> you know what? do more. this is too serious to say, well, i'll talk to my dad. err on the side of protecting the little boy. >> that's not fair. he didn't only do that. he did speak to joe paterno. he did do more. >> but the version that this other person has now -- that's been revealed, this other person testified to the grand jury about is actually much closer and jives with what sandusky has been saying, they were horseplaying -- ridiculous term, horseplay. set aside, is it appropriate at all for a ground adult to be horseplaying with a naked child in a shour? obviously not. sandusky says there was horseplay, this kid was turning all the showers on, running around, that could jive with what this other person is saying mcqueary told him. >> what makes this particularly problematic for the prosecution is that for this incident, as far as i'm aware, the prosecution doesn't know who the boy is. obviously the most important testimony in this case would be the victim, the alleged victim. apparently we don't know who the alleged victim is here. in the other incidents the alleged victims will testify. you don't need mcqueary or another eyewitness. >> tomorrow the alleged victims will be there. >> ten of them. that's extraordinary. >> i don't think they'll all do it one day. it's hard to put ten witnesses on, particularly about a complicated, embarrassing, awkward set of fangts. i would imagine this would go several days. >> so tomorrow there's the testimony. and whapgs then? >> well, the judge is going to decide whether or not there's enough evidence to send this thing for trial, a probable cause proceeding. in california i joke if my client is breathing, he's going to get past that. nobody expects anything dramatic where this thing will unravel and get dismissed. i think it's a lot more damaging or potentially damaging for the prosecution in terms of locking in testimony and then having at least the cross examination. if it turns out that a lot of the things that have been said that are out there in the either aren't true, the prosecute ser going to start backpedalling. i've seen that happen before. >> this is why, again, lawyers say do not talk to the media, do not give interviews because it puts alternate versions or versions out there that can come back on cross examination. >> even witnesses who are trying in good faith to tell the truth tell things different ways. their memory changes, they're nervous. every time you tell a story, you risk opening yourself to cross examination. >> i think we can't underestimate the fact that ten young men are going public at a public hearing to talk about something that young men and young men never want to talk about, child sex abuse. i think when you look at this case. >> we don't know what they're going to say. >> we don't know what they're going to say. >> they're going to say they were sexually abused by jerry sandusky. >> that's not true. in fact, sandusky's attorney has come out and said actually the versions of several of these boys, they've had cordial relationships and actually back up sandusky. >> they wouldn't be called by the prosecution unless they're going to talk about the sexual abuse. >> nice to have you hear. we're on facebook, google plus, add us to your circles. coming up, newt gingrich, even mitt romney says he is the front-runner. do his claims fit the truth along with the other candidates and president obama. james carville and rich gail len are here. the clearest signs yet of violence in syria. you see the same regime that murdered their child seemed to open fire on them today. details ahead. customers didn't like it. so why do banks do it ? hello ? hello ?! if your bank doesn't let you talk to a real person 24/7, you need an ally. hello ? ally bank. no nonsense. just people sense. it's good. honey, i love you... oh my gosh, oh my gosh.. look at these big pieces of potato. ♪ what's that? big piece of potato. [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. ♪ [ engine revs ] ♪ [ male announcer ] oh what fun it is to ride. get the mercedes-benz on your wish list at the winter event going on now. but hurry -- the offer ends january 3rd. [ santa ] ho, ho, ho! i could not make working and going to school work. it was not until the university of phoenix that i was able to work full-time, be a mom, and go to school. the opportunits that i had at the university of phoenix, dealing wh profesonals teaching things that they were doing every day, got me to where i am today. i'm mayor cherie wood, i'm responsible for the largest urban renewal project in utah, and i am a phoenix. [ male announcer ] find your program at phoenix.edu. spark card from capital one. spark cash gives me the most rewards of any small business credit card. it's hard for my crew to keep up with 2% cash back on every purchase, every day. 2% cash back. that's setting the bar pretty high. thanks to spark, owning my own business has never been more rewarding. [ male announcer ] introducing spark the small business credit cards from capital one. get more by choosing unlimited double miles or 2% cash back on every purchase, every day. what's in your wallet? this guy's amazing. a lot of big developments to talk about in the presidential campaign tonight. it is getting really interesting. several rough moments today for mitt romney who is now admitting he's no longer the gop front-runner. first a quick keeping them honest check on things that politicians say that often sound like facts, but simply aren't. two examples from the debate over the weekend. two claims that came up wanting when we put them to the test. newt gingrich responded to an allegation from michele bachmann that he and mitt romney once favored a cap and trade as a way of reducing carbon emissions. >> a lot of what you say isn't true. period. i oppose cap and trade, i voted against it the same day al gore voted for it. i helped defeat it in the senate through american solutions. it is simply untrue. >> keeping them honest, that is simply untrue. whatever you think of cap and trade, it is an initiative of letting market forces lower the cost of cutting emissions. in 2007, here's what gingrich said on pbs's "frontline." i think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with the trading system much like we did with sulfur and if you have a tax incentive program for investing in the solutions, that's there's a package that's very, very good. he adds, and frankly, it's something i would strongly support. and there's more, factcheck.org turned up congressional testimony from two years ago, in which the former speaker said he would support it if it was accompanied by incentives for nuclear power and clean coal. there was this from mitt romney. >> let's not forget, only one president has ever cut medicare for seniors in this country and it's barack obama. we're going to remind him of that time and time again. >> keeping them honest, that's not true either. according to factcheck.org, the 1997 balanced budget act which was passed with bipartisan support and signed by president clinton called for $112 billion in cuts over a number of years. national public radio spoke with the health care economist for the conservative american enterprise institute. when it comes to medicare we've had a series of cuts year after year, decade after decade. so governor romney's statement also fails to fit the facts, that's the republican side. the president for his part, recently talked to "60 minutes" and that interview aired last night. listen to what he said he thinks republicans have been up to lately. >> i think that when i came into office in 2008, it was my firm belief that at such an important moment in our history there was no reason why democrats and republicans couldn't put some of the old ideological baggage aside and focus on common sense, what works, practical solutions to the tough problems we were facing. and i think the republicans made a different calculation, which was, you know what? we really screwed up the economy. obama seems popular. our best bet is to stand on the sidelines because we think the economy is going to get worse and at some point just blame him. >> now, that's a popular talking point for democrats these days, but it's a pretty loaded charge. it implies that republicans are happy to take this country's economy to its knees so they can take the white house in november. again, a popular talking point, but no facts presented to back it up. digging deeper now with james carville and rich galen, who served as press secretary when newt gingrich was speaker of the house. james, what do you make of what came out of the debate on sunday? newt gingrich has to know he's a republican front-runner, he'll be under a lot more scrutiny, he has a record of supporting cap and trade. for him to claim otherwise doesn't seem an astute political move. >> i guess it isn't. but when you say something like this and have a huge audience, over 7 million people and try to clean it up after, sort of lost interest. who knows? but i doubt if he'll suffer very much for saying something which was obviously untrue and, as you pointed out, it was a conservative idea, the idea of milton friedman who is a conservative icon, if you will. so just like the individual mandate was a conservative idea. so i'm a little flummoxed why he wouldn't want to embrace it and it's become toxic over there. so he out and out denied something that he'd clearly done. >> do you think that newt gingrich will be the nominee? >> i never thought so before. i'm shaken a little bit. but i think he's getting ready to have a very rough couple of weeks. i think the republican establishment, whatever that is, a lot of people in the republican party are very concerned about this. and i think today we saw a taste of what's coming. i think more and more's going to come. and it's going to be a pretty rough couple of weeks here. >> rich, two new polls today show newt gingrich still in the lead in iowa, but with the lead seemingly slipping, you used to work for gingrich, do you think he'll end up winning the nomination? >> i do not think so. from a tactical standpoint, james and anderson, it sounds like all the primaries will be tactical. primaries cannot begin before april 1st. that almost guarantees this will be a long slog. and i just, as we're speaking here tonight, i don't think newt has the underpinning, the money or the organization to be able to go five or six months all the way into california and new jersey on june 5th. >> anderson, just to echo what rich was saying, there's also some evidence at least in the gallup poll that his national numbers are starting to slip. once these things -- if this is real, i don't know. if the evidence is not overwhelming. but if the evidence continues and they keep coming at him hard, once you start slipping, it's a pretty slippery slope out there. >> yes. let me just say this. six weeks ago herman cain was leading the polls, now he's gone. so six weeks down the road, who knows? >> that's what i just find so fascinating about every presidential race, just that it is a marathon. and somebody's up and seems like the rising star, then a few weeks later, who were they? who was that person? i want to play another moment from the debate on saturday night when mitt romney offered rick perry a $10,000 bet. some people raised a lot of eyebrows saying he's offering such a big bet, maybe it shows how rich romney is or out of touch he is with ordinary americans. let's take a look. >> you were for individual mandates, my friend. >> you know what? you've raised that before, rick. and -- >> it was true then. it's true now. >> rick, i'll tell you what, 10,000 bucks, $10,000 bet? >> i'm not in the betting business. >> oh, okay. >> did that strike you as an odd moment, james? >> you know what struck me as romney has all these debates, i don't know how many there have been, eight, nine of them. every debate he holds his cool and everybody comes out and says the same thing, that romney was the guy that could speak better, he was knowledgeable and everything and for the rest of whatever, he's going to be remembered as this moment in this debate. and it's kind of odd, but when you're in his position, you're judged by your worst moment. that clearly was one that he'd give more than $10,000 to take it back, i guarantee you that. >> also 50 bucks to the boys and girls club would have been a much better bet. but i think romney's got a bigger problem. he's allowed republicans or at least the narrative, as we like to say these days, to be well, newt is doing so well because people think he'll do better debating obama. i think what the romney people have to do, james, is to get that changed to -- forget who's going to be the better debater, i need you to think about, as you go into your high school cafeteria, or into the polling place, i need you to think about, who do you trust more sitting behind that desk in that office in that building 15 blocks from where i'm sitting? >> yeah, romney is off his game. under his skin. and his attacks have changed and his message, he's gotten away from any kind of message. it was kind of an economic message for a long time. they've got some smart guys over there. but they've got some real challenges. the biggest challenge is these conservatives in combination don't like him, don't trust romney. it's just daunting to sit there in a campaign and see that your number just never moves. you have sympathy for the guys on the other side sometimes, the consultants, not too much the candidates. but i kind of feel sorry for these