tv Hardball With Chris Matthews MSNBC March 10, 2015 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
the server will remain private. let's play "hardball." good evening, i'm kris matthews in washington. secretary clinton did everything right today but deal with the problem. she said she will not release the server, but without the server, of course, there's no way for the skeptics out there, critics, or anyone to know what's contained in the 30,000 messages. it's up to whether people are ready to take her word that dmun of those messages dealt with policy, politics or her handling of dicey situations. she basically said trust me, trust her not you have to deleted e-mails.
i said this afternoon there were two questions the former secretary of state would have to confront today. would she release the server? and would she give back the money the clinton found -- she gave her answer to both. it was the same answer -- no. susan page is a washington bureau chief at "usa today" carol lanning is a reporter with "the washington post" and michael steele was rnc chair. let me start with carol. your view about this first press difference, do you believe she dealt with the answers that will be the story for the next several days? >> i think it was good to hear former secretary of state clinton give in her own words, as a private e-mail for all her government business. i do think she avoided some questions or giving the specific answers to some key questions. for example, how was this set up? and who approved it at the state department? my colleague ann geren asked that question, but the answer
the former secretary of state gave is this was a system set up by hess husband some years ago. it doesn't explain whether or not the state department bought into this plan. as you know, chris, from the conversations we've had before, the state department has a pretty firm policy that day-to-day government operations should be conducted on government e-mails at the state department. so many employees now are asking, why did the secretary of state in this case feel that she could do the opposite? it's true, you can use personal e-mail. for sure you absolutely can, but you're supposed to be having it sent to or saved by the state department in an e-mail server controlled by them. >> but carol, she said that service inconvenient for her to do that, to have two sets of phones and two sets of e-mail accounts. >> well, it's interesting, because it's -- i see her point, and on the other hand most of the reporters in the room probably questions her have one
device that accepts several different kinds of e-mail accounts. i do. as well, there are other cabinet secretaries at the time who, you know, had the troublesome problem of carrying around two dices, and there are cabinet secretaries of her stature or during her tenure who had one that accepted both e-mails -- both e-mails accounts. so it's -- it's hard to totally 100% buy the convenience argument, because it's possible. if she could set up her own server in her home, it's possible for her to get her own e-mail on one device. >> in her press conference today, she said she used a private e-mail because it was convenient. here she is. >> when i got to work, as secretary of state, i opted for convenience to use my personal e-mail account, which was allowed by the state department, because i thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal
e-mails instead of two. looking back, it would have been better if i simply used a second e-mail account and carried a second phone, but at the time this didn't seem like an issue. looking back, it would have been better for me to use two separate phones and two e-mail accounts. i thought using one device would be simpler, and obviously it hasn't worked out that way. well, secretary clinton also said she decided which e-mail should be part of the public record and everything else was deleted, she said, at her orders. here she is. >> we went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related e-mails and deliver them to the state department. at the end, i chose not to keep my private e-mails, e-mails about planning chelsea's wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements, condollants notes to friend as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the
other things you typically find in inboxes. no one wants their personal e-mails made public, and i think most people understand that and respect that privacy. i have absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the possession of the state department. >> well, this leaves open the question of how do you get to the bottom of this. if you're a skeptic, for example, you're trey gouldie, he said i'll never know if something has hidden. >> it's kind of the nature of our system that rely on checks and balances. she doesn't get to decide what e-mails apply but that didn't happen. >> who's the "we" by the way? >> we don't know.
how do we know there were no breaches or problems? though she began to address the questions, she didn't settle the issues, and this is not the last time she'll be forced to address them. >> zs she worked on the clinton -- i mean, i'm sorry, the nixon impeachment committee. she knows how they stories develop it always ends up, once the public finds out there's some source of fact that you're holding back, and they ask for it. >> well, yeah. >> and eventually some judge says you have to -- >> this is her 18-minute gap. >> i wish i hadn't fed you that. >> i know, but you did and i'll take it. >> so she's rosemary woods? >> in effect she is. she's controllinged ultimate apparatus, which is the server. it has the forensic evidence you
need to see exactly what those 30,000 e-mails contained. the easiest thing for her to do is give over that server to the government. >> who would you trust with it? who wouldn't exploit the personal or political stuff that's not relevant to anything else? >> you would presume the state department taking control of that, maybe some independent organization or body also be a part of that process, that they would not release those personal e-mails relating to her -- >> suppose -- both of you can answer this. carol, is there a legitimate place for political conversation on e-mail? suppose she called up or e-mail somebody, what's this story on menendez, is the ranking chair? the times have been after him for months or years. how do you make that information public? political scuttle butt? does she have the right to keep that private? >> i suppose you could argue that she has a good reason to, but if she was use a state
e-mail, if she had, it would all by foia-ible. a lot of information have foia'd e-mails looking for hers. maybe they just want to know how she conducted business, but many have been told over the course of their public reports lawsuits, that sorry, there's no records from the secretary, without being told, sorry, the secretary never used a dot-gov e-mail. i want to go back to something that susan said true. how do we know? how do we know it was a secure server? it took a long time for the white house to realize that its server was being hacked by the russians, and we reported on that back in december. how does hillary know that she doesn't have any of her communications spied on or hacked on by any of the governments that might be wanting to do that, or non-quasi-governmental grooms.
to say it was on property protected by the secret service? how does the secret service protect from that kind of hacking? they're not capable of that. >> there's some trade craft going on today. i'm not knocking it. opening up the speech condemning the republicans for their letter to tehran, talking about her mother's funeral, chelsea's birth and marriage? >> deflection. >> all focusing on something besides the question at hand. >> and starting with a foreign reporter, a foreign correspondent. >> andrea is so aggressive. i can hear her yelling i'm here. >> the perfect clintonian move, deflection away from the central reason we were all hear. even the lead-up -- i'm hear today to discuss a matter in the
news lately, iran -- no, hillary, we're here for about the e-mails. it's going to matter, it will be in the debates, she was also asked about the foreign donations controversy at the clinton foundation, which took millions from -- here was her response then. i think this is more important than everything else we've been talking about. >> with respect to the foundation, i am very proud of the work the foundation does, i'm very proud of the hundreds of thousands of people who support the work of the foundation, and the results that have been achieved for people here at home and around the world. and i think that we are very clear about where we stand, certainly where i stand, on all of these issues. there can't be any mistake about my passion concerning women's rights here at home and around
the world. >> so the question is, why do you take governments that don't agree with you on women's rights? >> she's right. she has a long record with that. that's not the question, as you point out. it's who are you getting money from? did they expect -- why were they giving money? did they expect to curry favor with the secretary of state at the time? or was it somebody who they expected to be running for president? i think the e-mail question is important for transparency of government, but when you talk about the appearance of conflict of interest, and of the power of money in american politics, that is an issue that seems to me has more standing with voters. >> i think another question is, do you think these foreign leaders did this out of charity or for influence? >> absolutely influence. >> when you ask that question of anybody -- >> you're talking about access to a former president, access to a future president, secretary of state, absolutely it's about influence. >> anyway, thank you for joining us, susan page, carol, and michael steele. can hillary clinton contain the damage?
she's expected to announce her candidacy for president next month. did she say enough to start to put this thing in the rear-view mirror or not? is this problem still out there? plus the growing outrage over the letter-writing campaign to the hard-liners in iran to scuttle the nuclear talks. the senator behind the letter says it was absolutely appropriate to do an end run around the white house. as they used to say in britain -- he would say that. two students at the university of oklahoma have been expelled for that chant caught on tape. we have new details coming up. and a lot more about the hillary situation. "hardball," the place for politics. one day, it started to rain and rain. water got inside and ruined everybody's everythings. the house thought she let the family down. but the family just didn't think a flood could ever happen. the reality is floods do happen. protect what matters. get flood insurance. visit floodsmart.gov/flood to learn more.
heroes charge! ♪ (explosion) ♪ (explosion) ♪ (explosion) ♪ lead your heroes in the hit mobile game! download heroes charge now! on sunday senator fine sign to step up and explain the controversy. today feinstein told reporters that she was phied with her remarks. here's senator feinstein. >> i think the important thing was that she stepped forward to
talk to people. i think people will be reassured listening to it. now, i know this is -- look, the most popular political figure in this country right now. there is an effort from the opposition party to demean and diminish her. i think that moth personal e-mails should be private materials. i mean p. if i have an e-mail with my husband, i'm not an administration official, but if i were, should i disclose that? i don't think so. back with more on hillary clinton's e-mails after this.
the server will remain private i think the state department over time will be able to release all of the records that were provided. >> welcome back to "hardball." as hillary clinton holds an official press conference for the first time in years to address this growing controversy surrounding her e-mails. as you heard there, the server will remain private. it comes just a day after james car ville went on the attack, calling this story the entire story, the concoction shun. here he is blaming it all on people he said fed the story to "new york times" for their purposes. here it is. the times get something from right-wing talking points. you know, the times took right-wing talking points to the press, you know, which took right-wing talking points -- >> when do you think the e-mail story came from? it capes from republican staffers. that's where it came from.
>> today hillary clinton too many a much less incentary approach. >> i have absolute confidence that everything that could be in any ways connected to work is now in the possession of the state department. i did it for convenience, and i -- i am now looking back think it might have been smarter to have those two devices from the very begins. jonathan capehart and "new york times" reporter nick confessori. first the line of attack was from david brock, then james carville, the ragin' cajun. don't look at the facts, don't look at the story, focus on where it came from. that was the first attack. then waiting about eight days, and she's come out today saying it was basic convenience. i'm not releasing the server, i
only deleted private stuff dealing with my mother ace finial and my daughter's wedding. so i think it relies on this rorschach test. do you believe her or not. ? people in the middle will have to see. what's your view of thousand this will go over political? >> i think james carville would be happy if we used talking points that pro-clinton organizations send around and base stories on that. i think there's reasonable questionings that reasonable people have the e-mails and their provenance and the server. i think there are people who won't be satisfied, but there's a middle ground of people asking real questions, again, about security, government reports and her compliance with federal rules. what about the question i raised this afternoon? will we ever get to the bottom of this from the viewpoint of trey gowdy?
in fact, batches of things in that that might have embarrassed her with regard to dicey questions, but not just benghazi, that she doesn't just destroy that in the 30,000 e-mails? >> the irony is she's backed herself into a corner. it's hard to ever know what was deleted. >> no, if you get the server, you can tell. >> yeah, but if you had the server, but if they have in fact deleted thousands of e-mails from the server that were personal, according to them, it's impossible to know what those e-mails were, how personal they were. >> isn't it? you can't retrieve them? i thought you could. >> i'm not a forensic expert, chris. >> everybody is telling me that forensically you can get them. we'll have to talk about that later. >> look, she has a right to keep her personal e-mails private. but the problem is that she used
the server exclusively for all her official, and that is not the way the system was intended to work. how will this go on? it seems to me the "wall street journal" op-ed page will say she's not coming clean, and i think trey gowdy will say another example of cover-up. >> trey gowdy and the benghazi committees. he has his position, because the republicans on the hill won't give up benghazi. >> doesn't that give them a bottomless opportunity? >> of course it does. it breeds some new life into this -- >> they can close it down tomorrow and say we were stymied. >> yes, sure, they can say that. that doesn't mean there aren't legitimate questions raised by this whole situation. our editorial page today took it a step further and said, what's happening here with this e-mail situation and her handling of this leads to questions about what this could mean if she indeed gets the democratic
nomination and does indeed is elected president of the united states. you know -- >> where would you go with that? what do you mean? her practice of public life? is that what you mean? >> well, in terms of here you have a situation, questions are raised, we've been talking about this story now for eight days, and she's finally come forward. i mean, i've been saying for at least half that time she's got to come forward and answer questions so people can understand whether her rationale or excuse is reasonable. >> what do you think of the trade craft today? starting off with the statement about iran and the letter, and then the old trick of calling on a foreign reporter. they ask an american political question. >> although -- >> that looks like the old game, i'm sorry. >> the turkish reporters, the dean of the u.n. press corps. that was a matter of protocol. >> since -- like andrea accomplishle. >> she got the second question.
>> she really ran in there. >> to me which said he was not hiding. secretary clinton was not hiding. >> usually it's -- why don't you say it's up to nick? let me go back to nick. she had her nick, and she wasn't going to let andrea get that first qued. she said the questions come from nick. i don't know, not always. >> that's from frick merrill, i assume. >> yes, it was. >> the reporter asked a decent question to his credit. >> but it was the same question sisz anyway, columnists are giving hillary clinton zero cover. dan baltz writes all the words that she's offered about moving politics into a different space sound disingenuous when she reinforces past practices of secrecy rather than transparency. eugene robinson writes -- the controversy is a reminder of one inescapable fact, she comes with baggage. i'm talking steamer trunks.
how could anyone serve four years as secretary of state with no official e-mail account, instead conducting business from a private address with its own domain and server. the answer is -- deliberately. that's tough. >> yes, tough. >> these are not right-wingers. to back to the question you asked nick earlier, and to this whole point about the clintons, i've long argued that all of us here on the set, watching television view the clintons through a funhouse mirror. whatever they say, whatever they do is colored, distorted, warped by our views of them. so she could have come out there today and given a completely reasonable, rational explanation for everything that 457d -- but they want the server. >> and we still would be having the conversation. >> it's about hard information. shy wasn't going to turn it over. >> having said all that, even though we're looking at them through this funhouse server.
will this stop -- are is this going to die? >> i this i it might die without getting the server. >> will it die without getting the server? >> i think hell will freeze over before that server becoming public. the question is whether the relevant officials at state will have access to all the e-mails on it so they can make the decision about what is private and what is government. >> a great phrase to come on a day we were at the u.n. together -- until hell freezes over. is the great comment by adlai stevenson? i'm sitting here until hell freezes over. thank you both. we'll have more later in the hour with the roundtable when they get here. this is "hardball," the place for politics.
travails of hillary clinton today, and nothing can compare to the tragic suicide of her colleague. another tragic incident, tom shall week took his own life after he says the state's republican chairman was waging a campaign, spreading false rumors that she was jewish. john hack coke did say it's possible he spoke about the background, but denied mischievous or malicious intention. john danforth denounced the claims that pushed shweik over the edge.
it creates a new normal, where politics is only for the tough and the crude and the calloused. eyen joined by eric graten, a -- and a former navy s.e.a.l. who's worked with veterans suffering from mental and emotional distress. what do you think? in your book out today, it's called resilience, for living a better line and applying to lessons he's learned overseas. how about political life. you know, i thought back about vince foster, that tragedy, because he'sing founded by newspapers, and brutally treated in a way he hadn't been used to. what do you make of outs valuable will your book be to people in this terrible situation. the vise they find themselves in.
>> it's about how you deal with pain, how you deal with fear, how you deal with suffering, and what we know is there is a path through pain to wisdom. there's a path through fear to courage, if we can find a way to build the virtue of resilience. it was a tragic loss of a dedicated public servant here. one of the things i believe we have to do is you've got to do two things. one, you have to find a way to honor the legacy of those who have passed, at the same times you have to find a way to support the living. that means his family, and also supporting anybody who's in a situation like that. i've worked with veterans over the course of the last seven years, and anybody who is out there with a thought, just take a breath, take a moment, call a friend, call a hotline. know there are friends out there ready to support you. >> what about this political
environment i work here, and i have people on, where you find people spreading rumors, saying terrible things about you, jumping on you when you have a fall. it's risen, and it's personal, and it hurts, and yet people go into this business facing it because there's still some scum around to be honest, who really deal in this stuff. they deal in dirt on people. accusing a guy you have jewish, it's irrelevant, we have no religious test in this country. that's a fact of our constitution, and yet some character pushing the story thinking it's going to hurt the guy, it doesn't shock me -- it's a little out of date, but doesn't shock me. >> i think what's important is if we want decency in public life, we have to be decent. if we want courage in public life, twoef bring courage. if -- you know, there's this great quotation from ralph waldo emerson that what you do thunders so loudly that i can't hear what you say.
we have to bring decently and honor into the work that we do. that applying not just if you're in the space of public service. it applied when i was a navy s.e.a.l. it applied when i was working with veterans. it applied when i was doing work like you did in the peace corps. i worked with families overseas in bosnia with refugees. i worked in rwanda with kids who had been abandoned and abused in all of those situation, you have to bring discipline, courage compass and do so, because you always have to remember the purpose ear there to serve, and that's to make a real difference. create a result. >> there are people like bill clinton who can do it. they've been battered beat up, sometimes it's their fault, and they keep going on. and that is what work is about, resilient. thank you very much for joining us.
great. thank you for joining us up next, back to our big story, and what she went through today in addressing her e-mail. plus the outrage grows over republican efforts, those 47 republican senators to tank the iran talks. the roundtable is coming up after that. this is "hardball," the place for politics.
is there such a thing as a sure thing in business? some say buy gold. others say buy soybeans. i say, buy comcast business internet. unlike internet providers that slow down when traffic picks up, you get speed you can rely on. it's a safe bet. like a gold-plated soybean. reliably fast internet starts at $69.95 a month. comcast business. built for business.
welcome back to "hardball." when it comes to the controversy over hillary clinton's e-mail, her democratic rivals in 2016, such as they are, have been reluctant to even weigh in. today in washington, presidential forum, former maryland governor martin o'malley, who was considering a run, dodged the question. here he is. >> governor anything you'd like to hear from hillary clinton today? >> no, not really. >> reporter: should they be more transparent? >> wow, senator jim webb also took a pass, when asked. >> an opening, if you wanted it to talk more about perhaps why you're more of a transparent candidate? >> i think it's a good opportunity for secretary clinton to come forward and to explain the situation.
>> do you think people are right to be concerned about the transparency of her e-mails? >> again, i think that the best thing is to listen to her views and people will make conclusions in a better way than i can. >> it's going to be one exciting democratic fight, isn't it? last week when a cnn reporter asked elizabeth warren about the situation, a staffer shielded her and deliberately blocked the senator from answering. warren climbed into an elevator without even looking up. i think we have more fight out of this crowd. joining us harold shave burger, and and tad devine is a strategist of some note, advising bernie sanders, who is also considering a -- why is everybody afraid to even put on the big gloves and say, yeah, it
would be better on her answering they questions, or something slightly aggressive. >> i don't think anybody feels they'll get advantage from engagement. >> what kind of campaign will it be? >> i don't know what kind of campaign omailie will run or webb, but i think if bernie sanders decides to run -- i've worked for him, he's never attacked an opponent, never run an negative ad. >> how by comparison ads? >> no, he's going to run against something, the enormous greed that's strangling the middle class. >> who is he talking about? >> the billionaires that are buying -- >> no, which politicians? >> it's not going to be against hillary clinton. they have real differences and records that are different. for example, he voted against the iraq war, so there are drchszs, but he's not good to run a campaign, if he decides to run, against her. he's going to run against what he thinks -- >> other than bernie sanders,
and i'm sure he will -- >> it's a different kind of campaign not mentioning your opponent's name, but the three that you brought up in the intro, there's no reason for them to jump in negatively right now when the presses doing it for them. >> that's a good point. >> they've all been introduced to the public positively, so why go negative right now when there's no purpose to it. >> harold, it seems like the democrats and the polls are just info hillary, 86%. i've never seen numbers like this. maybe to ed muskie -- just kidding, or teddy kennedy -- but es gill everybody a looking at the polls say only 14% of the democratic party have any problem with hillary clinton. that's not many votes for me. >> i think it's fair to point out there is a strong democratic support for the secretary, but i would also remind you s. chris, that history would show that in 2003 there was a candidate that was clearly going to be the
nominee. his name was howard dean. along the way, in the summer of 2003, came somebody named senator john kerry, and hillary clinton was a candidate in 2008. >> by the way, what did you think of that piece today that had been -- your rank-and-file raising -- lack of interest i would say in hillary clinton as a president? >> i think -- i read that, and i think dana selected -- >> dana mill bangs. >> selected some of those comments, but i think that -- right, with our leadership there, they understand this is a process we go through. >> what's your percentage republican? >> about 44%. >> which way? >> republican. >> it's high for a union. >> it is, but it also is a membership with we do our work, we makes or decision, give our endorsement, we have an extremely high last time 68% of our members will follow our endorsed position. >> let's go back -- i don't
think they'll be talking about the servers in six months. they don't even know what a server is, and they don't have to know. >> somebody who waits on the restaurant. >> yeah. let's get serious. let's forget which party it is. if you heard a foundation that was taking foreign donations, algeria, countries that treat women badly, and you're the candidate saying i'm running on women's issues, how doi explain that in a debate? the republican guy stands up and says i'm not perfect, but why did you take all that money from the foreign governments? they didn't do it for good reasons. they gave us money for influence. that's why they did it. you may have taken it for goodwill. they did that to get in you, to get a piece of you. so why did you take it? >> i don't think the donations to the clinton foundation are going to be an issue. >> you don't think so? >> the foundation does a lot of good work. >> i know that. countries -- you don't think the republicans will -- >> they will try, but -- >> i think it's bigger than
e-mail. >> it's not giving money to her and her campaign. it's to a foundation. >> that they control. >> i think the e-mail issue is real -- >> let me ask you a legitimate question. you're getting into a position that i don't think is defensible. when you have a presidential library, it's a good cause, ever foreign dictator gives to it. that's the way to get into the pocket and the hearts of the -- into it is guts of any american politician. they want influence. like anything does. >> it's just like domestic politics. >> are you agreeing with hem? the guy tess bar says they took money from these people? >> sheldon adelson and the koch brothers are not giving money not to influence them. it's pay to play. >> they want it their way. >> the same thing happened -- these cunning are hoping to at least get goodwill from the clintons if not more -- >> a personal had been taking
money, wouldn't you go after them? >> if it tested well in a poll, sure. >> you're unbelievable. >> i disagree with tad about the e-mails. my sense is this is typical more washington chatter than anything. this has a partisan smell to it. >> but it didn't come from the part sans. >> well -- >> are you going to buy into the carville theory that the right-wing talking points were handed over to "new york times." >> isn't he always right? >> he's smart. the roundtable is staying with us. you next, that effort by republican snorts to go around the white house and scuttle the nuclear talks with iran before they get signed. this is "hardball," the place for politics. you wouldn't expect an insurance company to show you their rates and their competitors' rates but that's precisely what we do. going up! nope, coming down. and if you switch to progressive today you could save an average of over 500 bucks. stop it. so call me today at the number below. or is it above? dismount!
oh, and he sticks the landing! there's nothing more romantic than a spontaneous moment. so why pause to take a pill? and why stop what you're doing to find a bathroom? with cialis for daily use, you don't have to plan around either. it's the only daily tablet approved to treat erectile dysfunction so you can be ready anytime the moment is right. plus cialis treats the frustrating urinary symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently, day or night. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision or any symptoms of an allergic reaction stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. why pause the moment? ask your doctor about cialis for daily use.
the recent letter from republican senators was out of step with the best traditions of american leadership and one has to ask what was the purpose of this letter? there appear to be two logical answers. either these senators were trying to be helpful to the iranians or harmful to the commander in chief in the midst of high-stakes international diplomacy. either answer does discredit to the letters' signatories. >> i wish that was the only topic at hand. that was the reaction from hillary clinton to the 47 republican senators who sent a letter to leaders in iran trying explode the nuclear talks. vice president joe biden also blasted them, the senators saying the action was beneath
the dignity of an institution i revere. this provocative cover saying the 47 senators were traitors. the letter's organizer tom cotton of arkansas said this wasn't about undermining the president, rather they were making clear to the iranians that congress needed to approve any deal reached but what kind of deal would that look like? from what cotton has said it seems pretty clear he want no deal at all at least not one with a credible chance of being reached, of course, here he is. >> what would an acceptable deal look like to you? >> complete nuclear disarmament by iran. >> in other words, no deal. cotton said the goal of our policy should be regime change, sound familiar? this morning he said there was no one in tehran to deal with. >> there are nothing but hard-liners in tehran. they killed hundreds of troops in iraq. >> and while he now says he isn't trying to undermine the
president as recently as january the senator down is there spoke about the true goal of executive action, stop the negotiations altogether. here he is. >> certain voices call for congressional restraint. urging congress not to act now lest iran walk away from the negotiating table. undermining the fabled yet always absent moderates in iran. but the end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of action. it is very much an intended consequence a feature, not a bug, so to speak. >> we're back for the round take. howard, margaret and tad. margaret, i thought the republicans learned their lesson. you notice we don't have the right to go into iraq. they all feel they were bamboozled by w and the neocons. here this guy is blowing the bugle for another war, a war. >> right. i mean, i think he wants to be the ted cruz of foreign policy. he's been in the senate for 60 days. he comes out with this, the author of this letter and what
it shows is that they hate obama more than they care about, you know, america's foreign policy. they just want -- they want to blow this up at any cost because they hate obama. >> why does anybody here think they want to blow up the talks before they reach a conclusion before we find out what the deal is, ted? why are they afraid of a deal if though don't know what it is? >> one to undermine the president which they have done for a long time. they almost defaulted the debt -- >> are they afraid we might have a successful deal that stops the iranians from building a bomb? >> yes, i think they're afraid the president will have political success. >> you mean he'll earn his nobel peace prize? i'm dead serious. he would deserve it if he cut this deal. >> they have a political strategy. they've been following it since the day he was inaugurated to stop him at every turn. there used to be issues outside of this, you know, that the politics would stop at the water's edge, that the national debt, you know, we wouldn't bankrupt the united states, but those are gone now.
these guys are willing to do anything to undermine the president. >> that was newt and his crowd and mitchell mcconnell and planned this. >> i think it's -- >> politics. >> worse than undermining the president. i think this is such an extraordinary sign of disrespect for our government. and to -- this is really more of an attack and a continued attack on the president and just another issue to -- >> i think it's nothing like you lied, that crazy guy yesterdayed and this whole netanyahu thing. we're going to -- you know depose you and bring in net. that's what it seemed like. >> 47 presidents signing the letter. by the way -- >> senator, excuse me. >> senator bob corker. >> good for him. >> not signing. >> susan collins did the same thing. >> the white house doesn't reach out enough to bob corker. >> that's something we should talk about. menendez and corker was nice to join the other side. senator cotton said the threat of military force is the only
message governments like iran understand, the threat of force. >> israel struck iraq's nuclear program in 1981 and didn't reconstitute it. they struck iran's and they haven't reconsty statute it. rogue regimes get the picture when there is a credible threat of military force on the table that we won't allow them to get the worst weapons. that's why it's important we have the credible threat of force on the table to enhance a better deal that leads to iran disarming its nuclear weapons program. >> you know, i think we constantly underestimate the country of iran. i don't like their policies, nobody here does but to keep treat them like they're nothing, they're not syria, they're iran. >> they have education -- >> worries about them, not because they're not tin pot dictator. >> that cotton wants to run our foreign policy here, by the way. >> the president said they cannot have nuclear weapons.
he will use force, as well. >> i say that about any president. >> this is another partisan attack on the president as opposed to the substance of trying to influence policy or this agreement. >> you know, i looked at today. all the companies doing business with iran, i mean, it's amazing. i mean, they've got this intergreated economic -- >> excuse me. someday people will look back on this and say he was treated worse by any other opponent. what was it about? and they'll remember what it was about him. >> read the ferguson e-mails. >> thank you. i grew up with -- harold. margaret, maggie, thank you, dear. and todd, smart guy. we'll be right back after this. designed to match even salon color in just 10 minutes. with root touch-up, all they see is you.
if you want to succeed in business, mistakes are a luxury you can't afford. that's why i recommend fast reliable comcast business internet. they know what businesses need. and there's a no-mistake guarantee. if you don't like it, you have thirty days to call and get your money back. with comcast business internet you literally can't mook a mistick.
i meant to say that. switch today and get the no mistake guarantee. comcast business. built for business. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. tonight on "all in" -- >> i would be pleased to talk more about this important matter but i know there have been questions about my e-mail. >> hillary clinton breaks her silence and causes a veep like media frenzy. >> got to eat the yogurt now. there will be cameras on you. >> tonight, separating the news from the spectacle with senator dick durbin and state department spokesperson marie harf. >> i opted for convenience. >> then republican war on peace talks continues as two more sign tom cotton's letter to the mull
IN COLLECTIONSMSNBC West Television Archive The Chin Grimes TV News Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on