tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC June 7, 2013 5:00pm-6:01pm PDT
if we shift the responsibility to say, what you want to do about donation from saying, i want to do it, to having to say, i don't want to do it. most people say they do want to donate. why don't we make that the default position. opt out. why not, indeed. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes and thank you for joining us. tonight, rupert murdoch's new york post has put some scummy stuff in the papers but the latest has landed the paper in court. congressman like peter king are committing political suicide in broad daylight and no one is in thing. i'll explain what that's all about. and if it's friday, it is time to sneak ryan gosling in click
3. one of those moments that remind you, regardless of what you think of him, president obama is and remains one of the most fascinating political figures ever to take the world stage. the president with a was in california today at a healthcare event and president obama was prepared to comment on reports that the national security administration has collected american phone records and internet data. the president agreed to take one question from a reporter and to know surprise the question was about the secret government surveillance programs brought to light largely this week by the guardian newspaper. but what surprising, really remarkable, was the amount of detail president obama explained about programs that had been secret just a few days ago. >> when it comes to telephone calls, no one is listening to your telephone calls. that's not what this program is about. as was indicated, what the
intelligence community is doing, is looking at phone numbers and duration of calls. they are not looking at people's names or content. but by sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism. if these folks -- if the intelligence committee wants to listen to a phone call, they've got to go back to a federal judge. just like they would in a criminal investigation. so i want to be very clear. some of the hype that we've been hearing over the last day or so, nobody's listening to the content of people's phone calls. this program, by the way, it
fully overseen, not just by congress, but by the pfizer court. a court especially put together to evaluate classified programs to make sure that the executive branch or government generally is not abusing them and that it's being carried out consistent with the constitution. and rule of law. >> some restraint is in order here because i can spend the whole next hour telling you about the difieficiencies. now back to the president. the so-called prison program which is alleged to mine data from nine major internet firms. >> with respect to the internet. and e-mails. this does not apply to u.s. citizens and it does not apply to people living in the united states.
and again, in this instance, not only is congress apprised, but the physa court has to agree to it. >> what we see in the next clip is the president having a very public argument with the 200 the version of himself. that version being the newly elected president of the united states which said explicitly in his inaugural agrees that the american people reject the choice between our safety and ideals. having said all that, you remember what i seed a couple weeks ago, about the perpetual war mind-set, i said specifically one of the things we have to discuss and debate is how are we striking this balance between the need to keep the
american people people safe and our concerns about privacy. because there are some trade-offs involved. i welcome this debate. and i think it is healthy for our democracy. it is a sign of maturity. i think five or six years ago, we might not have been having this debate. it is interesting that there are some folks on left but also some folks on the light who are now worried about it. who weren't very worried about it when it there was a republican president. i think that is good that we're having this discussion. but i think it's important for everyone to understand and i think the american people understand that there are trade-offs involved. i came in with a healthy skepticism about these programs. my team evaluated them.
we scrubbed them thoroughly. we expanded some of the oversight. increased some of the safe guards. but my assessment and my team's assessment, was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks. and the modest encroachments on the privacy that are involved in getting phone numbers or duration without a name attached and not looking at content, that on, you know, it was worth us doing. some other folks may have a different assessment of that. but i think it's important to recognize that you can't have a hundred percent security and also then have a hundred percent
privacy and zero inconvenience. we're going to have to make some choices as a society. >> that answer, president obama gave us the clearest indication of his presidency to date. just how much tension there is between the ideals of a candidate and realities of an office holder. not to mention the overwhelming gravitational pull of our enormous national security bureaucracy. the president may have given us an indication of how much he wrestled with this conclusion. president obama did something that he almost never does. he returned to the podium after a second question was thoughted to him. he was not about to leave that question to speculation. >> we will have the chance it talk further during the next couple of days. thank you. [ inaudible ] >> i don't welcome leaks,
because there's a reason why these programs are classified. you know, i think that there is a suggestion that somehow any classified program is a quote unquote secret program, which means it somehow suspicious, but the fact of the matter is, in our modern history, the whole la range of programs have been classified because when it comes to, for example, fighting terror, our goal is to stop folks from doing us harm and if every step we are taking to try to prevent a terrorist act, is on the front page of the newspapers or on television then presumably the people trying to do us harm are going to be able
to get around our preventative measures. that's why these things are classified. but that's also why we set up congressional oversight. these are things that you all vote for. as your representatives in congress, they're being fully briefed on these programs. and if in fact there were abuses taking place, presumably, those members of congress could raise those issues very aggressively. they're empowered to do so. we also have federal judges. that we put in place not subject to political pressure. they have lifetime tenure as federal judges and they're empowered to look over our shoulder. at the executive branch to make sure that these programs aren't being abused. so we have a system in which
some information is classified and we have a system of checks and balanced to make sure it is not abused. and if, in fact, this information just ends up being dumped out, willy-nilly, without regard to risks to the who gram, risks to the people involved, in some cases on other leaks risks to personnel and very dangerous situations, then it's very hard for us to be as effective in programming the american people. that's not to suggest that you just say, trust me, we're doing the right thing, we know who the bad guys are. and the reason that's not how it works is because of
congressional oversight and judicial oversight. and if people can't trust not only the executive branch but also don't trust congress and don't trust federal judges, to make sure that we're abiding by the constitution, due process and rule of law, then we will have some problems here. >> we do have some problems here. because the president is leaving out a crucial detail. let's not forget this administration has fought tooth and nail to keep these programs secret. not just the individual activities, but the entire scope of the activities engaged in they are determined to keep secret. they have also kept secret their interpretation of the law. how they justify what they can do and can't do under the constitution. the idea that all three branches of government have signed off on this is just fundamentally misleading and untrue. no one is really arguing this these actions are not lawful under the white house's own interpretation of the patriot
act or any other law congress signed off on. this is the most foundational document we have, constitution w, bill of right, and unlawful search and seizure. there is one body we view as having the ultimate say so as to whether something is constitution or not. it is called the supreme court. there is a chain of appeals in an adversarial process and wined up on the docket of the supreme court. that is how judgment on constitutionality is ultimately rendered. but, and this is crucial, we have not allowed that process to evolve among anything in the universe that is post 9/11 secret government. any time someone want to challenge it in court, the court says you don't have standing or the government says you can't. these are too secret and too important to face the scrutiny of the judicial process.
so none of this has been signed off on by the one body that poweres it to render constitutional. the supreme court. yes, let's have this debate. i will have it. former deputy director of national security agency. he joins me next, and i want him to try to tell me why i'm wrong. moving object detection. ♪ blind spot warning. ♪ lane departure warning. safety, down to an art. the nissan altima with safety shield technologies. nissan. innovation that excites. ♪ nissan. innovation that excites. i am an american i'm a teacher. i'm a firefighter. i'm a carpenter. i'm an accountant. a mechanical engineer. and i shop at walmart. truth is, over sixty percent of america shops at walmart every month. i find what i need, at a great price. and the money i save goes to important things.
i'm about to debate former deputy director from the nsa about that agency's surveillance program. plus, remember when the new york post pinned the boston marathon bombing on these two totally innocent guys? we will find out what this cover story did to their lives. ♪ the middle of this special moment and i need to run off to the bathroom. ♪ i'm fed up with always having to put my bladder's needs ahead of my daughter. ♪ so today, i'm finally talking to my doctor about overactive bladder symptoms. [ female announcer ] know that gotta go feeling? ask your doctor about prescription toviaz. one toviaz pill a day significantly reduces
sudden urges and accidents, for 24 hours. if you have certain stomach problems or glaucoma, or can not empty your bladder, you should not take toviaz. get emergency medical help right away if your face, lips, throat or tongue swells. toviaz can cause blurred vision, dizziness, drowsiness and decreased sweating. do not drive, operate machinery or do unsafe tasks until you know how toviaz affects you. the most common side effects are dry mouth and constipation. talk to your doctor about toviaz.
in respect to privacy issues, i will leave this office sometime in the next three and a half years. after that i will be a private citizen. and i suspect that -- on a list of people who might be targeted, as far as e-mails, i would probably be pretty high on that list. and that's not like i don't have a personal interest in making sure my privacy is protected. >> that might be the president's best argument in the newly disclosed phone and internet spying programs that allow the government sweeping access to phone records and web activity to millions of americans. but knowledge that barack obama himself will soon be subject to the national security drag net his administration is perpetuating doesn't convince me i should just trust him. join meg is former deputy
director and from a strategic risk management firm. all right, cedric, why should we be okay about verizon turning over every single call record and targeted at people who are foreign but does have access to a tremendous amount of content and data from american citizens. >> chris, there are a lot of concerns with programs like this. so when you take the programs in their entirety, it looks like a lot of spying and essence going on from between the nsa directed at the american people all around the world but the point of fact is there are a lot of safe guards in case that i importantly worked and have a part of for 26 years and the safe guards include very significant training that prevent the sem nation of
personal data and u.s. persons as it's known, to people who shouldn't have that information. so if there is any collection, and even incidental collection, that is against policy and that policy is a policy that is taken to a level of extreme compliance. in the national agency and associationes with it. so the idea that we are going in and that nsa is going in and taking a look at every single e-mail, it is just not true. what is true is they have a data mining capability that can look at every single facet as described in certain of the press releases not in all of them. but the basic idea is they can go in, take a look at who is connected to whom and once they have figured out who is connected to whom, where those dots are connected, then they can seek a further warrant and go in and say, okay i'm interested in chris tonight and
how it is with cedric and how that will see what difference is. >> so two questions here. one is a privacy concern. two questions. one are safe guards that are secret really safe guards. right? you can tell me you've trained people to obey the law but all of the safeguard, not only the safe guards but the actual legal reasoning here is secret as well. my question is, why should i trust that when, and let me just give one example, we know that bush administration was engaged in a warrantless wiretapping program through the nsa for years. that was not covered, not briefed to congress, not explicitly authorized unlike this one. and it was four or five years before one whistle-blower came forth. a guy by the name of thomas along with a few others and said i thought the secret service is something other branches of government should know about. so they can decide, do we want this to be taking place. and someone can say, i've taken an oath to uphold the constitution.
we know there was a possibly unconstitutionally certainly illegal warrantless wife tapping program. for possibly four years. that nobody blew the whistle on until he came forward. why should i trust that same agency's safe guards? >> nsa will follow the branch of government and if there is a problem with anything that is decided within the executive branch then obviously it becomes a matter for the courts. and it is under the bush administration is concerned, there is so many aspects to that, you know, clearly, there were, you know, in spite of what you have heard, i can tell you there were members of congress who were briefed on at least the rough outlines of that program. and now, you know, fast forward to the present situation members of congress have clearly been involved in it as you know, and there are so many different element of control. now there are people that can
make mistakes or people that deliberately violate policies, sure. that does happen. but they are punished and the basic rule that happens with folks like that is that the very minimum, they will lose their security clearance which means they lose their job and in many cases, they can go to jail, depending soent varity of the issue. so there are safeguard in place. there are significant career and personal consequences for people who don't follow the rules. and for people who deliberately violate the rules or engage in, you know, what could be rogue operations. so those kind of operations are very much circum scribe and there a great deal of control within nsa and other agencies to prevent that kind of thing from happening. >> thanks so much for talking to me tonight. appreciate it. >> my pleasure, chris. thanks for having me. >> imagine to have yourself on the front page of the new york post, fingered as a suspect for
the boston bombings. my next guests will tell us about it. this day calls you. to fight chronic osteoarthritis pain. to fight chronic low back pain. to take action. to take the next step. today, you will know you did something for your pain. cymbalta can help. cymbalta is a pain reliever fda-approved to manage chronic musculoskeletal pain. one non-narcotic pill a day, every day, can help reduce this pain. tell your doctor right away if your mood worsens, you have unusual changes in mood or behavior or thoughts of suicide. anti-depressants can increase these in children, teens, and young adults.
cymbalta is not for children under 18. people taking maois, linezolid or thioridazine or with uncontrolled glaucoma should not take cymbalta. taking it with nsaid pain relievers, aspirin, or blood thinners may increase bleeding risk. severe liver problems, some fatal, were reported. signs include abdominal pain and yellowing skin or eyes. tell your doctor about all your medicines, including those for migraine and while on cymbalta, call right away if you have high fever, confusion and stiff muscles or serious allergic skin reactions like blisters, peeling rash, hives, or mouth sores to address possible life-threatening conditions. talk about your alcohol use, liver disease and before you reduce or stop cymbalta. dizziness or fainting may occur upon standing. take the next step. talk to your doctor. cymbalta can help.
when talking about surveillance and privacy, one of the things you hear is what do you have to worry about if you don't have anything to hide. but the privacy isn't just about the nsa or fbi, it is absolutely om any directional, leaving you without control of anything. if you don't believe me, maybe you will believe these men on
the cover of the new york post, bag men, feds seek this duo pictured at the boston marathon. voters read it. they were widely on the media. photos of innocent men in the midst of the most dramatic terrorist attack on terrorist soil since 9/11 splashed across the page of the new york post, essentially labelling them terror suspects. >> like i just don't want it look at people. because when they look at me, they will be like oh, you did this. how could you do that. why would you even do that. there are so many people killed. if you look at it, it wasn't me. >> the washington post eric
wimple ran a piece called young men, please sue the new york post. he got his wish. that's when 16-year-old and 24-year-old filed a defamation lawsuit against the new york post accusing the tabloid as falsely portraying them as suspects in the deadly marathon bombings. according to the court complaint, the front page would leave a reasonable reader to believe they had bombs this their bags. the new york post is yet to come on the suit. but when startry first ran, the paper's editor this chief, allen stood firmly behind it saying we did not identify them as suspect. rupert murdoch says they were all distributed by fbi and were instantly withdrawn when fbi changed directions. tonight that cover story is still on-line and shows two innocent men with giant red circles around their heads, probably drawn on microsoft paint. if you scroll down there is another picture of the men with
the men in blue with the bag over his shoulder in the crowd later. the men in the cap is wearing is no longer visible. there is an addendum at the top of the post that says, men were cleared by investigators, so i suppose it is all good. bill barrett, representative for the two men. mr. barrett, what was the affect of appearing on the cover in this context for your client? >> thank you for having me. it was devastating. yasin is a terrific young adult and had real oly come over here expecting to work hard, live the american dream, and to run. running was his passion. and this marathon monday was essentially super bowl sunday to him. when he saw he was being accused of being a terrorist, a bomber
of a heinous -- committing a heinous crime, it was devastating to him. he lost his breath. his mouth went dry. he sought assistance from a counsellor at work. he has since broken out in terrible hives. he has been unable to sleep. he has suffered from depression. most importantly from yasin, he wasn't done the one thing that he loves to do, and that's run. he hasn't been able to do that since the incident and has no desire to right now. >> the argument i suppose that you will get from the new york post is that they were just passing along an image, that image had been circulated by some police authorities it appears, it found its way from the internet into some of the e-mail traffic that the police authorities were sending around adds they were searching for pictures of the suspects. and they never explicitly said
they were suspects. they called them bag men. >> they did worse than calling them suspects. they call them the men responsible for a very heinous act of terrorism. they called them bag men. feds seek this duo pictured at boston marathon. they called them the men with the bombs in their bags. they didn't just call them suspects, they said they were the men responsible for doing that. that is libel. that's what this case is about. >> what is the legal standard here in i will show you, the new york post did not cover itself in glory, as you may know, during week, in a whole other variety of examples. authorities id person of interest is saudi national in marathon bombings. under guard at boston hospital. there are a number of erroneous reports. what is the difference of just getting something wrong in the midst of the fog of post bombing confusion and actually doing something that is worthy of a
court judgment? as let's get something very clear. there was no confusion. no confusion in putting those men on the cover of the post and saying, they are the men with the bombs in their bag. they wornt confused about that. they didn't have any evidence at all that these two were sought by the federal authorities or even local authorities. they had no evidence of that. and they compounded the problem by calling them the guys with the bombs in their bags, by as you pointed out in your opening, on pages 3 and 4, they said, feds have two men in their sights. seen in picks with back ppack i bag. and they show my clients with red circles around their face. that is not true. that is patently untrue. the feds did not have these two individuals in their sights. that's irresponsible. when that irresponsibility is untrue and it causes damage that
we talked about a little bit today, our defamation laws allow us to bring a cause of action. they also had the right to privacy violated. we have account for negligent affliction of emotional distress. all of those are viable claims. i'm sorry? >> okay. bill barrett, you are the attorney for yassine zaimi, thank you for coming on the show. >> thank you. >> we'll be right back with click 3. and she forgot to pay her credit card bill on time. good thing she's got the citi simplicity card. it doesn't charge late fees or a penalty rate. ever. as in never ever. now about that parking ticket. [ grunting ] [ male announcer ] the citi simplicity card is the only card that never has late fees, a penalty rate, or an annual fee, ever. go to citi.com/simplicity to apply.
but with advair, i'm breathing better. so now i can help make this a great block party. ♪ [ male announcer ] advair is clinically proven to help significantly improve lung function. unlike most copd medications, advair contains both an anti-inflammatory and a long-acting bronchodilator working together to help improve your lung function all day. advair won't replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than twice a day. people with copd taking advair may have a higher chance of pneumonia. advair may increase your risk of osteoporosis and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking advair. ask your doctor if including advair could help improve your lung function. [ male announcer ] advair diskus fluticasone propionate and salmeterol inhalation powder. get your first prescription free and save on refills at advaircopd.com.
a chorus of boos rained down on house republicans yesterday as they pass congressman steve king's measure to deport the children of undocumented immigrants. yet another terrifying warning sign, the gop is about to blow up the tenuous reformation deal. that story ahead. first, the three awesomist things the nsa saw me see on the internet today.
the snarking over that very story. news of sweeping surveillance of internet and phone record caused an internet fire storm. here is a quick sampling. instant parody accounts from my favorite police state and if you play ping floyd dark side of the man, it tells the story of the wizard of oz. 32 corgis have more interesting phone records than you. 43 people who wish they didn't know you. and 17 adorably romantic moment caught on remotely activated moment. the motor city has fallen on tough times so when actor ryan gosling starts walking around the city, you better believe the
people will be happy about it. except this isn't ryan. this is doug. when doug dawned a pair of sunglasses, people thinking he is ryan gosling got a tad creepy and confessional, like this woman, explaining what her favorite part "the notebook" does. no word on whether doug will try his hand at acting or get noncereal lines. okay, that wasn't on there, that was just a line to show ryan eating cereal. vladimir putin and his wife went on television to announce their divorce. she met her soon to be ex-husband on a plane working as a flight attendant, which is odd, since she does not like to travel.
it is posted, if these two can't make it work, what does that say for the rest of us. putin made a full-time job out of posing for photographs while brandishing a weapon. while shirtless and posing for photographs while shirtless and brandishing a weapon. yes, this soviet strong man is single and ready to mingle. for the soon to be ex mrs. putin, she is getting plenty of offers too. don't worry, mrs. p, that ryan, not doug. we'll be right back.
man: how did i get here? dumb luck? or good decisions? ones i've made. ones we've all made. about marriage. children. money. about tomorrow. here's to good decisions. who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. ready to plan for your family's future? we'll help you get there. [ agent smith ] i've found software that intrigues me. it appears it's an agent of good. ♪ [ agent smith ] ge software connects patients to nurses to the right machines while dramatically reducing waiting time. [ telephone ringing ] now a waiting room is just a room. [ static warbles ]
[ telephone ringing ] it's been that wayting room since the day you met.oom. but your erectile dysfunction - it could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain,
as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial. [ male announcer ] moving object detection. ♪ blind spot warning. ♪ lane departure warning. safety, down to an art. the nissan altima with safety shield technologies. nissan. innovation that excites. ♪
after the last election, hard right anti-demagogues like iowa's steve cane were supposed to be pushed to the side in favor of the new latino-friendly faces of the republican party. but that not exactly the way things are working out. in the same week marco rubio signalled he might blow up his own bill, gop opposition to comprehensive immigration deal continues to intensify led by, you not surprisingly, steve king himself who proclaimed today if they think they're going to force feed amnesty, there's going to be a rebellion. and a rebellion we are getting. yesterday house passed by a vote of 224-201 an amendment sponsored by king that would take away funding for a policy that lets undocumented youth who
have been in the country for years stay in the country. effect you'vely demanding the government force out so-called dreamers who came to the united states as children. this is a symbolic vote to deport kids. a vote that every single congressman who voted in favor knows will go nowhere but every republican september for six voted for. just because. >> the amendment is adopted. [ booing ] >> that is the scene of it passing the house with 221 vote. this is 14 republicanes from district at least one quarter voting age hispanic p. quick recap. the same republicanes who voted to deport kids, those are the exact same congressmen voting on the reform bill. king says the vote might indicate we are not particularly
persuaded. which brings us to the senate. somewhat of a safe space, harry reid announcing yesterday in july fourth's deadline to vote on the bill. senator jeff sessions leading the charge. >> virtually no one is being deported. how did the legislation become as defective as it is. it will definitely give amnesty today. give legal status to some 11 million people today. and quite a number of significant areas, weakens current law. right. amnesty, done. >> you talk to immigration advocates, on the hill and even the white house, they think a deal will get done. but with the high stakes, 11 million people on the line, the president's second term, i can't help but watch the developments of the past few days and start to panic that this is not going
well. joining me are two people internatalie involved in making this bipartisan compromise happen. but director of policy at uniteded we dream network, largest in the nation, and executive director of the national immigration form, pro advocacy and policy organization. i want to begin with you. you come from the conservative side of this. and the idea, the conservative elite and folks in the conservative community and donor class and elected members when you get together and basically have a come to jesus moment with the republican party about the need for supporting comprehensive immigration reform and that looks like it is falling apart in front of us. why am i wrong? >> there's an active debate occurring within the conservative world. have you on one end steve king who thinks he will bring the republican party back to the forefront but sadly he is wrong. on the other hand you have paul
ryan, marco rubio and others trying to take a pragmatic approach. when you look across the country, you see those who hold a bible, those who wear a badge and those who own a business are all looking for a practical solution to the immigration system. these are people who are conservatives and moderate and are key to getting us a win. >> elliott. >> sure. >> you just lost a vote on thursday. symbolic vote. republicans got in the house and said, what is probably the least controversial aspect of a comprehensive immigration reform package, when and it f it happens. a symbolic bill that won't come up to be. got up on the well for a king amendment. and with a ton of latinos in his district, a district that barack obama won, and saying yeah, i want it deport these people, basically. how am i supposed to understand
that vote if not an indication that the steve kings of the world are winning and your side is losing. >> the far right wanted to, quote, show the president who was in charge of the house. that is an opportunity for the country to see if republican kes actually govern. at this point what majority of americans want, they want solutions. and it is going to be on the backs of the republican party, in the house of representatives that creates that road to r citizenship and we have to move from symbolism to substance and that's where the test will be -- really be fought. >> so you are someone who worked on the dream act and then what is called deferred action. what they voted to defund in the house. what was your reaction it that vote? this is something you have worked all of your teenage years and the small bit of your adult life on. how do you read that vote? >> i think there was outrage
across the dreamer community and a very clear commitment to fight. deferred action didn't just happen. we forced the president to do it. and i think we will continue to fight, not just to keep deferred action there, i really don't think it is at risk but to make sure the gop makes the right decision and i think testimodem holds the line. how does congress vote for a bill that's incomprehensive. and i think the message i get out of this week is the gop has a decision to make. i think speaker boehner will play a big role here. are they going to define, the steve kings in the world, immigrant, define the future of the gop and effort to rebrand. their party. or is someone going to step in here and -- [ inaudible ] >> he is a tea party darling.
he himself is latino. he was going to be the pern that brought the two worlds together and he turns around and says he has been crafting an amendment that if voted on will almost certainly blow up the piece of legislation. you mentioned marco rubio in your first answer. what the heck am i supposed to make of that. if the leader of the gang of 8 is talking about vetoing his own bill, how are we supposed to be on right track. >> the beginning of this week, i'll submit, it's been a little shaky. >> thank you for that initiative. for. >> today this amendment is very hazardous to the bill. but mark why rubio said we can get to 60. that's what we think. we can get to 60 votes and with something coming out of house. at the end of the day, conservatives are pushing
republican members of congress to get in line with the solution. that is something we have never seen on this issue across the country. >> i want to hear about what that actual lobbying effort looks like and how strong it is. i also want to talk about sheriff joe aipaillo. all of that after this break. what a night, huh? but, um, can the test drive be over now? head back to the dealership? oh, yeah. [ male announcer ] it's practically yours. [ wife ] sorry. [ male announcer ] but we still need your signature. volkswagen sign then drive is back. and it's never been easier to get a passat. that's the power of german engineering. get $0 down, $0 due at signing, $0 deposit, and $0 first month's payment on any new volkswagen. visit vwdealer.com today. you will lose 3 sets of keys 4 cell phones 7 socks and 6 weeks of sleep
but one thing you don't want to lose is any more teeth. if you wear a partial, you are almost twice as likely to lose your supporting teeth. new poligrip and polident for partials 'seal and protect' helps minimize stress, which may damage supporting teeth, by stabilizing your partial. and 'clean and protect' kills odor-causing bacteria. care for your partial. help protect your natural teeth.
are proven to be effective pain relievers. tylenol works by blocking pain signals to your brain. bayer advanced aspirin blocks pain at the site. try the power of bayer advanced aspirin. chalky... not chalky. temporary... 24 hour. lots of tablets... one pill. you decide. prevent acid with prevacid 24hr. they have no idea what it was like before u-verse high speed internet. yeah, you couldn't just stream movies to a device like that. one time, i had to wait half a day to watch a movie. you watched movies?! i was lucky if i could watch a show.
show?! man, i was happy to see a sneezing panda clip! trevor, have you eaten today? you sound a little grumpy. [ laughter ] [ male announcer ] connect all your wi-fi-enabled devices with u-verse high speed internet. rethink possible. illegal immigration. i'm going to be a poster boy this time around for all of the senior citizens around there with discrimination against them, whether you want to believe it or not, there's discrimination against senior citizens. >> as mara copa county sheriff,
joe arpaio, of course one of the most colorful populist demagogues, announcing he has a second calling, at this stage in his career, is moving to discrimination against seniors. i think it is a much bet ariste issue for him to work on. that aside, here is my question. okay, please explain to me the game plan here. the game plan is supposed to be this deal the gang of 8 hold together. held up through mark up. has a big majority. 60 vote. maybe 70. comes out of the senate and forces the house to take it up. i don't understand if that game plan is still operable. so explain to me how this moves forward. why i should believe this is going to happen. >> i feel the house has its own process. there is a gang of seven now.
i think that goodlaw is working on his pieces of immigration. and i think that the house is going to have to go throughity process and i think the leadership and the person that we are looking to in the house is speaker boehner. he is going to have to assure us, our community, that there is protection for any bill moving through the house. the house judiciary committee is many antigovernment restricti restrictioni restrictionist. >> basically joe arpaios. >> right. we would have to have assurances. >> so the idea is that something will come independently out of house. and this is the kind of business community and folks you're in touch with come to play. here is my comparison for you. when the financial industry of this country and business community wanted the bail without pass, wanted tarp passed, it came up in the house and got voted down the first
time. it was voted down by a whole bunch of republicans. in fact a lot of kind of republicans who are probably voting against comprehensive immigration reform. what happens between the day of the first vote and second vote is that the lobbyists went to the hill office to office, meeting bemeeting, saying the world end if you don't vote the right way on this. my question is, is corporate america going to bring together that level to get people to vote the right way, if they care about it as much as they say they do. >> you know, chris, this is completely different of what we saw of the financial crisis. across the country are there bibles, badges and business who be conservative advocating for comprehensive immigration reform. if you go to the website bbb2dc.org. you will see haley barbour leading business, leading business corporations, all
working together, not only in dc with you across the country if districts where it matters most. that's what is different here. it is nothing like the financial crisis. nothing like guns. clear incentive for conservatives to bring a conservative vision to the debate. that's why i believe they will craft legislation and make it through. we will see a bill on the president's desk this summer. >> every day that passes, if yo say that is there immigration reform, i would say yes. everyone add death bed conversion. everyone saw the spread on latinos and spread with asian-americans, which is faster growing than latinos in this country. all of the big wigs in the
republican poll can read the words. everyday that passes we are aday further from that election and day closer to mid term election in which the leker toate will look much older an much whiter, almost certainly, than it did in 2012. is that part of what is exerting a gravitational pull. and is that urging this thing no move forward. >> i think for this to move forward, is the fact that our families continue to be separated. people continue to be deported every diand people have been living in shadows for far too long. i think the clear political mandate out of the elections continues to be vel haven't. if republicans want to see the inside of the white house again, chris, i think they have to change their politics and tone on immigration. >> i think that is true. my big question is, i think people are losing sight of that. >> i think you remind them.
not just on dreamers, on the whole community. fz. >> thank you. that's "all in" for this evening. the rachel maddow show starts right now. >> good evening, chris, happy friday. there's a lot kul coming up on the show today. it is just one of those kind of days. in the summer of 2002 a guy time inned mark cline was working at at&t in san francisco. he worked for sait for about 20 years at that point ppt he worked in new york city and whoit plains, new york. he transferred to california. he worked for at&t there. and a couple of different cities but by summer of 2002 he was in san francisco for at&t. he was a lifer at at&t. he was a trusted long time employee. then one day while at work he got a message. watch this. this is from front line on pbs. >> in 2002, i was sitting at my work