i'm very proud to have you who watch this show regularly to discover where i came from. that's "hardball" for you. all in with chris hayes starts right now. good evening, from new york, i'm chris hayes, the supreme court will be hearing a new challenge to the affordable care act in conservatives never ending quest to kill the gravely damaged law. but what's at stake in this case is les about health care and more about what rights corporations have. >> what is a corporation? >> a corporation as defined in american law is an organization formed with approval of the government to act as a single entity, most often carry on business.

>> you start with a group of people who want to invest their money in a company and then these people apply for a charter as a corporation. the state government issues a charter to that corporation. now that corporation operates legally as an individual person. >> and ever since the idea of corporate person hood established in the early 19th century, the limits of the rights of those corporate people have been a hotly contested issue in american politics. >> corporations are people, my friend. >> in a landmark 2010 decision, the united states supreme court decided that corporations deserve the same first amendment protections on political speech as individuals. >> last week the supreme court reversed a century of law that i believe will open the flood gates for special interests, including foreign corporations to spend without limit in our elections. >> the president's brushback of the supreme court was met with one of its justices shakes its head.

but if corporations can have some first amendment rights, whatabout the rest of them? >> the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, right to get married? >> right to get married? >> sure, not gay married, i wouldn't want johnson & johnson getting together, you know? >> needless to say, expanding the rights of the constitution to corporations is laughable. >> breaking news from the supreme court. the justices have now decided to take up a key piece of the president's health care law to make a major ruling potentially about how religious beliefs can shake a way a corporation operations. >> today they'll take up two cases that can dramatically expand the first amendment rights of corporations. employers who provide insurance to their employees must provide comprehensive contraceptive coverage.

religious organizations like churches and mosques are exempt from the rule, but corporations are not. hobby lobby, a chain of craft stores with more than 15,000 employees. >> a christian owned business argues it should not be forced to pay for emergency contraception for its employees. >> a men men it owned -- it shouldn't have to provide birth control coverage to its 950 employees on religious grounds. >> the owners of these companies are making the incredibly radical claim that their corporations have religious rights under the first amendment, that the government requiring them to provide robust contraceptive coverage. -- >> if the supreme court says as it might, that a company like hobby lobby can assert a religious freedom claim, then what's to keep any company from saying we don't want to serve

jews, we don't want to hire gays. >> that's the slippery slope here. >> that's what the supreme court has to be very concerned about. >> so the question here, is can a corporation hold constitutionally protected religious beliefs. what if the west borrow baptist church started a greeting card company and decided not to give -- effectively decide if a company can pick and choose which laws it will follow, based on the personal religious beliefings of its owners. >> joining us now is justice correspondent pete williams, and pete, why did this case come before the court. there's a split at the lower federal court level about whether or not these parties have a claim. >> that's right, the hobby lobby won its case in the fifth circuit court of appeals in denver.

the constitution does give personal rights to corporations, the supreme court has given a number of them over the years, including most recently, freedom of speech rights. the third circuit court of appeals t other one the supreme court agreed to take today, said no not only can corporations not assert this claim, but the owners of the corporation can't claim that it violates their rights because it's the corporation that provides the contraceptive care not the individuals. hobby lobby doesn't object to all the provisions of the contraceptive main date. they said only those four are tanlt mount to abortion and they violate their religious beliefs. they're like 40 of them that have been filed on this question of whether for profit corporations have religious

rights, actually a support many of the goals of the obama care law, many of them support, for example, universal health coverage and have said so in their legal briefs. it is an interesting constitutional question, one the supreme court has never answered before and one of the reasons they took the case is precisely the one you mentioned because the lower courts are divided. >> in the lower court case in the mininite -- made an explicit argument based on citizens united that was rejected by that lower court. they basically said, look, the supreme court handed down citizens united, i don't zee how you can draw a line between those first amendment rights and these as well. >> and the 10th circuit said just the opposite, that it's a continuing line. the supreme court is going to have to sort this out. there are a lot of legal scholars here on this question who don't think it all hinges on citizens united. the judge who wrote the 10th circuit decision thought that it

did. citizens united is not the only time that courts have ever said that corporations can exercise what are in essence, individual rights. some they have, some they don't. joining me now, former georgetown law student, famously denied her a chance to testify at their house hearing for birth control. tim, i'll begin with you, you have been a very sif rouse defender of the congress shus klaus shus -- extends to just any for profit run corporation? >> look, barack obama has his own sexual morality, i have my own, they follow the catholic teaching. that's great, this is a free country. i don't think barack obama should get to impose his morality on me the second i go

into business. >> but do you think an employer should. this is the key let me when we talk about freedom interests, the employer here is saying their freedom is being impinged because the affordable care act requires them to give birth control without a co-pay. giving that right, has some encroachment on the freedom of the employee. >> i don't see that as having any encroachment on the employee. because the employee is perfectly free to go out and by his or her own birth control separately. you infringe on your hosts to go out out -- >> i think it's great that you have that right and that you make those decisions. to say that i'm not going to pay for my employees birth control, is not the same as saying my employee may not get birth control. that's a distinction that's very important to make and that is upheld.

>> sandra? what do you think about that argument? >> i think the problem is that the argument goes much farther beyond the contraception issue, think could be about a lot of different aspects of health care. and employer could decide they want to deny coverage for blood transfusions. but many of these are cost prohibitive health services and beyond that, it goes even beyond health care. it's a corporation picking and choosing which types of laws they want to comply with. and our belief in this society has always been that we protect the religious liberty of individuals in their private lives. but that when you cross that line and go into the public atmosphere and decide you want to operate as a -- >> that's not really true,

chris, right now you and i are putting our opinions out on television. you are making money on this, i am not. chris is in business on tv, so we're going to infringe on his first amendment rights, but tim and sandra, they're just doing this -- >> that's a bad thought experiment for about 90 different reasons, the first being the actual -- and there's specific constitutional name parties. there's specific constitutional case law around that. but taking that aside, the argument that sandra's making is there is no iteration of the argument that doesn't prove too much. there are presumably some faith traditions that believe that aides aids is the punishment of a wrathful god and to deny coverage for aids coverage and i cannot imagine any conceivable universe that a justice society could allow a corporation to assert that conscious clause to deny coverage for aids treatment.

>> that is an absurd -- >> it doesn't have to be a belief that is recognized by organized religion. it can be as absurd as we want, because the court is not going to decide whose religious beliefs are legitimate and whose aren't. >> a democratic congress passed it into law, you haven't had any of these outrageous examples. right now we have an example where -- that sex, family, marriage, love, belong together. that is the idea between the catholic opposition to contraception. or in the hobby lobby case. the morning after pill can end a human life before implantation or even after implantation to end a human life. >> that theology, that does not matter, you cannot adhere to private theological

justifications of essentially what is is either a public policy or a constitutional matter. >> if the government thinks that is a compelling interest to get more people contraception -- there are les intrusive ways to get women contraception. this is obviously not the least intrusive possible way. this is what the case law points to. >> and one of the things that's really important that they are going to come to in this case, is what would be a less intrusive way of offering contraception. some are arguing that some should provide the contraception. while we hear this type of argument from tim, at the same time we find conservative lawmakers cutting back on funding for things like title 10, there is a thing -- insurance coverage on insurance

that employees pay for at the same time there's an attack on public availability through clinton clinics. this is absolutely an attack on women's health care. >> it goes back to the civil rights act and the public accommodation title. there were people in the civil rights act who were saying, look, you cannot tell me government who i have to serve at my diner or at my motel. you don't get to tell me because this is a privately run business. there is a statute of that law and the constitutional case law that affirmed it is that when you enter into the marketplace, you're not allowed to bring forth all of your beliefs, there's a certain kind of way we're going to meet each other in the marketplace. it's going to be very interesting to see how that plays out in this case. thank you both. >> thank you. coming up, last night we discussed how the historic diplomatic break through between

the united states and iran just dealt a death blow -- tonight we're going to talk about this with the former u.s. deputy secretary of defense, paul wolfowitz, yes, him. don't go away. she's always been able to brighten your day. it's just her way. but your erectile dysfunction - that 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 four 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.

coming up some big news on this story to report. >> we take the vetting of stories very seriously at "60 minutes minutes" and we took it seriously in this case and we were wrong. we have to set the record straight. [ male announcer ] how do you get your bounce?

i'm, like, totally not down with change. but i had to change to bounce dryer bars. one bar freshens more loads than these two bottles. i am so gonna tell everyone. [ male announcer ] how do you get your bounce? [ woman ] time for change!

tonight there is more fallout from the benghazi bombshell, the reported 60 minutes on the tack. this was a story that -- >> morgan jones scaled the 12-foot high wall of the compound that was still overrun with al qaeda fighters. >> one guy saw me. he just shouted, i couldn't believe that he had seen me. because it was so dark. he started walking towards me. >> and as he was coming closer? >> as i got closer, i just hit him with the butt of the rifle in the face. >> it later turned out the security officer told his employer that he had not in fact been present during the fact. and according to the "new york

times," he told the fbi the same thing, that he had not gone to the compound during the attack. in other words he told american law enforcement and his employer he did not witness the attack but then he went on tv and described witnessing the attack. cbs news announced an internal investigation. today the findings of that internal investigation are out. cbs news has announced that laura logan and her producer under the benghazi report have been asked to take a leave of absence. the security officers differing accounts were knowable before the piece aired, but why the -- the security officer's admission he had not told the employer the truth about his own action should have been a red flag in the editorial process. the security officer's book published by simon and schuster

should have been disclosed in connection with the segment and logan's speech one month before starting work on the benghazi story presented a conflict. >> i hope to god you're standing in your best clan december stein warriors and let them know that the united states will not be attacked on its own soil, that it's ambassadors will not be murdered and the united states will not stand by and do nothing about it. >> cbs news chairman and executive producer stated that he asked logan and mcclellan to take a leave of action. as executive producer, i am responsible for what goes on the air. this got through. what do you think of today's news? >> i you know, let's give them credit, media -- this story needs to be retracted, it was, there needs to be a review and

the findings need to be made public and they did. the problem is every step along the way is they were too slow, they were too defensive and we still don't know why. this is a very cursory review that could have been put together in a matter of dies. we can talk about how this review really does not compare to how the national guard controversy nine years ago, the last time 60 minutes was really caught. >> and defending the story a few days after, that is the thing i don't understand how that happened because clearly whatever the internal channels of editorial controls did not communicate effectively that there were possible flaws in this guy's story. >> he talked about how he likes to catch things and this deception got through. they're saying they got duped, they got tricked. but simple reporting, googling almost, they would have realized this guy shouldn't have been on the air, et cetera, et cetera.

>> one of the things david brock said on the night of that reporting, he said this is a guy who fox news turned down his source because he wanted to be paid. >> and cbs didn't explain to viewers that we're publishing his book. it was a train wreck from beginning to end. the question is did they learn anything and that's what media matters is going to continue to watch. >> i want to sort of make a reference to allan ginsberg -- i saw the reporters of my generation sucked into the benghazi vortex. some people's work i respect, some peoples work i don't respect. it gets pulled into this kind of quick sand of right wing spin and lies. there's an actual thing that happened, there's an actual adark, there's actually americans that are dead. from's a whole set of actual concerns and they're ones that i think a lot of people care

about. any time you start to creep towards it, you get sucked into the world of the crazy right wing obsession. >> they want to tell a certain story on the other side. it's talked about in the national guard controversy. the reason cbs got in trouble was that cbs team went in with abagenda. media matters was one of the absolute firsts, as you mentioned, the day after this report aired, we were calling it a hoax. we have been following this misinformation campaign for a year. we know this siren song pretty well, the singering questions about the rescue and things like that. more and more reporters as you say get sucked into this vortex, because it's alluring, they have a right wing media machine. they feel like if they can tell that story, it would be great. but the facts don't support it. >> every time i just as a reporter have come across the benghazi story, and said that

doesn't look so good. you take a deep breath and wait a day or two. and this has been the case time and time again. susan rice said what she said on the sunday shows. time and time again, paul krugman had the column the other day that obama care was going to become another benghazi, things that when you got closer to them were hyped by are right. >> the obama care horror stories, all these people losing their health care and you know the premiums doubling and tripling. and then you have reporters, often people online coming through and rerecording, saying this isn't a horror story at all, their premium is going to go down. paul krugman is right. you've got to go down to two decades of white water. people just want to tell that scandal story again and again. and look at all the reporters got burned by white water. none of it held up.

the obama care stuff we're seeing again and again. >> two people chase that because they think that's where the energy and the audience is? >> they think there is -- >> there's stuff to report about obama care and healthcare.gov. >> 16 hearings at least in congress, we have had independent reviews, at some point you have to accept the fact. and yes, let's get more information but let's not make stuff up and let's not get sucked into this smear campaign, this misinformation campaign. >> coming up, congressman tray radal is in rehab after pleading guilty of buying cocaine from an undercover d.c. police officer. >> i know there have been a poz fif that comes out of this. i hope that i can be a role model for millions of others that are struggling with this disease. >> party members in florida are calling for his resignation, i'm going to tell you why they should back off next.

so florida republicans are now piling on tray radle. the hiptop conservative -- busted in washington last night for buying $250 worth of cocaine. he pled guilty last week and was sentenced to one year of supervised probation. he will take a leave of absence from congress and is now in treatment for addiction. but it didn't take long for his fellow republicans to call for his head.

two gop county executive committees in radle's district said it is in the best interest of all involved that he resign immediately. and then there's florida governor rick scott. >> as you know, the party chairman of the republican party of florida came out and announced trey radal for his resignation, i agree with the party chairman. trey is going through a tough time. my prayers and my wife's prayers are with him and his family but we have to hold him to the high es standards. >> that private hospital network just happens to have admitted to 14 felonies and then a had to pay what were by far the largest medicare fraud settlements in american history, $1.7 billion worth of them.

i think rick scott has zero standing to criticize radel's -- here's my reaction. i'm torn between rage of democracy and some passion for someone who's going through some serious substance issues. >> i have great compassion for anyone who has substance abuse issues. >> bill maher seemed to be referencing that discussion when he said this on his show. >> i heard two esteemed liberal commentators and they said i have compassion for an adiblg. okay, nancy reagan, can i get something straight here, just because somebody does a drug doesn't mean they're an adiblg. >> i actually agree with bill maher. i think this is an important teachable moment. so let's be clear, the use of illegal drugs does not equal drug addiction, mr. whether that's cocaine or -- binding those two together.

in fact, my jaw hit the floor, we had neuroscientists carl hart on the program one month ago and he said this. >> the vast majority of people who use crack cocaine do so without a problem, they're not addicted, the same is true for methamphetamine methamphetamine, where now the myths are being transferred to methamphetamine. but we have tray radel who legitimately seems to be in the throws of addiction. his father in a wrenches here view -- who can't go to private fancy rehab centers and who are also grappling with addiction. what i want to see come out of the trey rad erks

does not criminalize addicts. we'll be back.

coming up, what it's like to still have a world view that has been wholesale rejected by the american public. i'll ask paul wolfowitz, the former accept deputy secretary of defense. we begin with the one truly honest review of the new hunger games movie. it's a worldwide phenomenon and as far as being reviewed, it's virtually critic proof. >> catching fire t second installment in the popular hung games trilogy with the help of a boy who all things considered isn't even that hot.

i mean he's not ugly, he just could have been way cuter. >> rosenthal's may have been complaint -- despite a big thumbs up for the quote, superhot hemsworth has a nod for the entire male cast. >> compared to other movies with hot boys, like twilight, the hunger games -- i like when they're shirtless. especially taylor because he's really buff. >> as we all know the onion is a satire website. rmgts something to think about the next thing you hit a pothole, you could have been driving on this road in western russia. it's not a bad ride, well placed traffic. the problem is sometimes the road just explodes. yes, that's what it looks like. and while there are many things that could have caused the

damage. we found out it wasn't a sink hole. it wasn't one of those underground worms, just a burst pipe under the street. sometimes snow men are freaky. this freaky snow men who apparently is in his fourth season of scaring the crap out of people on the street. scaring people is what he does and he does it over and over again. >> oh, my gosh! >> [ bleep ] that scared me. >> o ooh!

>> the video is three solid minutes of people in mortal fear of a snowman, but this is by far the best reaction old freakie was able to scare up. who says halloween is over? sometimes i think my family off the field...

is sweatier and messier than my family on the field. so like the nfl i use tide... ...because i'm the equipment manager in this house. that's my tide. what's yours?

neoconservatives appear to have reached the final sad face of their trajectory in american life, trying to engage in self parody. as evidence, witness in op-ed in today's wall street journal. it might be the worst thing written yet. the iran interim diplomacy deal is, quote, worse than munich. he's talking about when in 1938 when the munich pact was -- there's something called god win's law, which essentially says when you get into a debate on the internet about, well, anything, if you mention hitler or the nazis, you have automatically lost whatever debate you were having. so if you have a tendency to say this is just like hitler, when you have an argument, it means you're not arguing the case very effectively. hitler is what you say when

you're losing an argument. the six big powers has many of the flaws of munich calling the interim deal with iran one of those rare occasions when comparison with munich in 1938 was valid. but -- some version of godwin's law. >> this is a sham from beginning to end, it's the worst deal since munich. >> osama bin laden and his terrorists allies have made their intentions as clear as lenin and hitler before them. the question is, will we listen? >> we have got chavez in venezuela with a lot of oil money, he's a person who was elected legally, just as adolf hitler was elected legally. >> i have often used that precise analogy of hitler and munich as a reason why we should

take rhetoric seriously. >> if every bit of diplomacy is appeasement, we must be as a people in perpetual war. luckily, americans have largely rejected that world view. but i'm -- paul wolfowitz was the deputy secretary of defense under george w. bush. he joins me now, mr. wolfowitz, my first question to you was given the fact that there was a kind of reformist regime in iran ten years ago during the bush administration, why with respect you guys in the bush administration able to get this deal done a decade ago? >> let me just ask, i take it you think it's a mistake to take osama bin laden's rhetoric seriously or saddam hussein's rhetoric seriously? >> but they're being compared to hitler. >> but we should not go to war with saddam hussein.

>> that's a different question. but you're mocking the idea of taking someone's rhetoric seriously. >> i'm not mocking the idea of taking people's rhetoric seriously. strategic calculations of what someone's going to do. people can have bad rhetoric and actually use that rhetoric for domestic purposes or political purposes. but the rhetoric being taken seriously when invoked in the context -- >> i do not necessarily think that all the rhetoric coming out of iran is an indication of ma their desire is in terms of their nuclear program or their designs on israel. >> no one says it is a design or -- >> benjamin netanyahu says that all year. >> i'm not here to argue benjamin netanyahu. i am here to say, since you started this on that foot, to mock the idea of taking

threatening rhetoric seriously is a literal mistake if you like. hitler is close to unique. fair enough. >> close to unique. but here's the question, what does taking rhetoric seriously mean? i think you and i in the abstract can agree, taking rhetoric seriously, but when taking rhetoric seriously, and this is invoked in the -- the leaders saying israel being a barking dog. taking the rhetoric seriously is then an indication they aren't serious about diplomacy which is then used as an argument that there's a military solution as opposed to a diplomatic one. right? >> no. out just says it's part of the equation. and, you know, to be honest, one of the things that's a little shocking, is to hear how often people have welcomed the mushy, fuzzy, vague rhetoric of rowhani as a change in altitude.

i think the real point is forget the rhetoric. one of the problems is we made too much of vague promises which we know are easily reversed. just on sunday, secretary of state kerry was asked on a different network, i won't advertise their name here, what about the comparison between this deal and the deals of north korea. he said oh, they're completely different. north korea was a member of the npt, the nonproliferation -- iran has renounced nuke career weapons. north korea was a member of the npt until after ten years they decided to leaf it. iran can leave it. every one of those three things that kerry mentioned are relate trick which is reversible. let me finish this time. what is needed is concrete dismantling of their program, not promises, not words. but verified dismantling and there's nothing in this

agreement that does that. >> first of all there is something concrete which is they're going to dissolve the 20% enriched uranium. the question is for you, short of war, short of a disasterous, absolutely horrific abomination, a repeat of the worst thing that i have seen in my lifetime, which is the iraq war, short of that, what is the solution then? >> -- not suddenly believe promises when we have evidence over the last ten years that shea have they have every intention of -- which is also by the way going to come back and haunt you in six months if the atmosphere is so good, if the progress is so great, then why don't you just keep continuing

down this road. that's what happened with north korea. that is the comparison kerry doesn't want to accept, but that's how we got into that situation with north korea. >> north korea and iran, that's exactly the kind of thinking that i'm so fascinated. north korea and iran are vastly different states. >> they're a great deal more clever actually. the iranians will negotiate their way out of this much more cleverly than the north koreans did. >> you you don't think there's a different set -- than there is for the -- >> you keep changing the subject. the point is you can't -- >> that is the subject because you keep invoking north korea. >> you can't rely on the promises of either one. >> this deal has verification built into it, doesn't it? >> if iran isn't developing nuclear weapons, why are they developing long range missiles? they make no sense unless you put a nuclear weapon on them. >> i think the point of the

question s if you concede they're after nuclear weapons, something they simply don't know, i haven't looked at the intelligence, if you -- to not go to war, right, and those two goals are equally important in my mind, then what do you do that doesn't look like this agreement? this agreement to me looks like a pretty good path between those two terrible outcomes. >> make sure you maintain the sanctions t sanctions are obviously biting and obviously hurting and hurting them much more than they're hurting us at all. this regime is shaky, this regime is having trouble at home. another thing i would do, which is important here, i would not abandon the people of iran, the way we have, not only under this president, but to a sorry extent over the last 20 years. the people of iran are the greatest hope for change. >> i would like to respond finally here. you have said that before and i

have been awed who wrote these ground breaking chronicles, of murderers by the regime. he and many other dissidents say they welcome this, they welcome this deal. there are dissidents in iran. people who oppose the regime who think this deal can give daylight. >> and there are plenty of dissidents who are afraid that this deal is going to letting gitimize is regime. i it's shameful and it's going to come back and haunt us. you don't want a war, i don't want a war. but a bad outcome can lead to a war just as much as too much belligerence.

>> we'll be right back. she's always been able to brighten your day.

it's just her way. but your erectile dysfunction - that 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 four 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.

joining me now is the president of global security foundation, author of "nuclear nightmares." joe, this argument that we need to ratchet up the sanctions and more and more pressure, what do you think of that? >> paul wolfowitz does a wonderful job of calmly and softly presenting a completely crazy position. it's filled with value laden words and hypotheticals and what ifs and secondary considerations. this is the same guy who led us into a disastrous war with iraq and there's a group that are trying to do it again with iran. and the question is, are we stupid enough to fall for it twice.

they are not interested in using sanctions to pressure iran to make a deal. they don't want to make a deal with this regime, they want to overthrow it. it's a crazy position that will lead us once again to war. >> in terms of the american people rejecting it or not buying it, i think we have seen a real sea change in the american people, to use all that rhetoric that was so potent in 2003 has drained out now. >> we have learned the lesson from iraq that perhaps what we had forgotten before that since vietnam. and i think that we are moving into a stage in american life where, which i can't remember in my own lifetime where a lot of the belligerence, a lot of the hyper patriotism, a lot of the saber rattling that has marked so much of our war politics is just not working. this is a good thing, i think the american public is more interested in the idea of what engagement can actually get us,

in what making deals with get us and what multilateralism can get us. >> can there a thinking about these frame works that doesn't rely on this idea that you're trusting the iranian regime? >> oh, absolutely, don't fall for that. this deal has nothing to do with trust. you don't trust a bank when you take out a more gajs. labor doesn't trust management when you make out a deal. you have contracts, you have actions in that contract and that's what you got with this agreement between the u.n. security council, by the way, this is not a deal between the united states and iran. the u.n. security council, including france who's a hero to these guys just 10 days ago, if they don't fulfill their terms we have actions to pull the plug on any sanctions relief we may have given them. >> do you think there's space opening up increasingly to push for something that looks more like a peace agenda?

that's a phrase that's so far from our actual politics now, but is actually what i think you want politics to embody, right? >> unfortunately t word peace comes laden with all sorts of value judgments, negative value judgments in our politics. but what that shows is that you can actually move towards actual piece, you don't have to call it peace, you can call it engagement, you will call it with all sorts of things like verification, you can use thome terms. but i do think we're moving into a situation where the american public does not want us to be on a perpetual war footing and while we need to proceed carefully with iran, we need to understand that we can potentially make ourselves a lot safer for the long haul if we start engaging countries like iran and other countries to dial down the anti-american effort across the world. >> i think we're seeing a geo political shift in the middle east.

certainly it makes people uneasy, but it is definitely worth pursuing. >> thank you, that is all in for this evening. the rachel maddow show starts right now. >> i'm already watching you and pal wolfowitz in my mind, and it's not stopping, chris, that was amazing. thanks to you at home for joining us. there's lots going on in the world, including huge whole swathes of america on whether a rather large and powerful storm is going to keep us all from getting home to where ever home is for the holidays this year. the god of supposedly random weather really does like to give us storms on the heaviest travel days before thanksgiving every year and this year it turns out is no exception.