magazine rack with women provocatively photographed. they talk about rape and vaginal probes and all kinds of stuff. just don't talk about that stuff. a lot of us say that we have evolved on issues like marriage equality. hell, i have. most of the country has. i would say they are far back in the evolutionary history of ours. do you think? it's "hardball" for now. "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes and thank you for joining us. coming up tonight, when president obama goes to the rose garden lately, he sure does make news. today the in your face appointment of susan rice to be his national security adviser. we'll talk about how that's going over. and later, obama's nomination of the district court judges yesterday, one comes with an

amazing backstory, and a mission to fight against stop and frisk. i want to begin with marco rubio whom i believe is attempting to pull off a massive heist in broad daylight. i see you marco rubio. i see what you're doing. in case you thought no one was watching, i see what you are trying to pull. you see, there's a reason senator rubio's star is rising in the gop. he's a possible presidential candidate in 2016, perhaps even a favorite. and it's because in many ways marco rubio is just the perfect candidate for what ales the republican party. he's young, telegenic, inspiring backstory, latino heritage, all attributes that greatly assist a party that is out of touch with the rising national electorate. let's not forget, the republican candidate for president in 2012 lost young people by 24 points and that was nothing compared to what happened with latinos. the party lost latinos by a

crushing 44 points. now, to survive beyond the current generation, republican party is going to have to brush back its vocal minority. the tea party base, the constituency that starts and ends the conversation on immigration with how big should we build the fence and how electrified can it be? if there's anyone that can stop the bleeding, marco rubio would seem to be the one that can do it. if that means getting a compromise on president obama's most important legislative goal, so be it. and so far, let's give some credit here, what once seemed completely inconceivable, has very much has been a reality. a bill that made it out of committee and dramatic vote just last month. >> mr. chairman, the votes are 13 days. >> it passes. >> but now, marco rubio has

pulled a fast one. he's already getting credit for marshalling the bill forward. now he wants to get credit for killing it, too. so yesterday on conservative talk radio, which you probably weren't listening to, marco rubio said the one that he has put his name and face associated to, he said that bill, the one he signed off on, the one he's been pushing all over the place, it needed to strengthen border security. >> if those amendments don't pass, will you yourself support the bill that emerged from judiciary, senator rubio? >> well i think if those amendments don't pass, then i think we've got a bill that isn't going to become law. >> did you hear that? he will vote no on his own bill. why? it your honor its out rubio has been working with john cornyn from texas, working with weeks, according to a rubio aide and if this amendment doesn't make it into the bill, well, the bill

that he worked on, it's toast. >> it's not going to pass in the house and i think it's going to struggle to pass in the senate. >> suddenly, marco rubio, the saviour to immigration reform, is on the same page with the republican leadership in the horror show that is the house of representatives, where there's absolutely no chance of an immigration bill passing unless the border is essentially covered in lava. >> i think it's very clear that the house will not take the senate bill. there is an effort to improve the senate bill as it moves through the floor but it has a long way to go from the house perspective. >> as i sit here speaking to you tonight, we very well may be witnessing the end of immigration reform in congress. it's this close. the man who is going to wear the badge of reform on the republican party is responsible for what could be a fatal blow. and it's because i think marco rubio realized that actually the best possible outcome for his own career is to be the guy that

gets credit for trying to fix the party's willful outlook with latinos and gets to go around to all of the republican donors who desperately want this bill while also at the same time being the guy who stuck the shiv in the deal to please the tea party. that is the heist. and what's being stolen is the future of 12 million people who have flesh and blood stakes in the outcome of this immigration bill, whose future depends on the margins and darkness into the daylight of full american citizenship. and while we all pay attention to the irs star trek videos, marco rubio is getting away with this heist and that's not right. it's not right that marco rubio wants to look latino voters in the eyes and said he did everything he could to change an unfair policy while he openly dashes their hopes the minute they look away. so here's my proposal. let's make sure he can't have it both ways, because we see what you're doing, marco rubio, and it stinks.

joining me now is democrat from colorado, co-chair of the new democrat coalition immigration task force. real simple question, congressman. are we seeing the demise of comprehensive immigration reform today? >> chris, you framed it exactly right. you can't have it both ways. i'm still optimistic. i mean, the next hours, the next days are absolutely critical. senator rubio either needs to put up or shut up. at some point the excuses are getting in the way of actual progress. let's see if they can make real changes that we can live with and they can live with or whether this is a simple ploy to stop immigration reform. >> on the simple ploy to stop immigration reform, one of the members -- there's a house version of folks who come together, bipartisan group, you've been involved in a broader conversation on this. the small group negotiating, recall labrador, a congressman from utah, he himself is a puerto rican, he announced we have learned and confirmed from

a congressional source, he is leaving that group. he is walking away from the deal. what does that mean to you about how precarious this is right now? >> well, our small band of eight is now a band of seven. we still have a bipartisan effort to establish a bill in the house. rule labrador and there's been breakdowns on health care. if you're going to have a requirement that immigrants cover themselves, how are you going to do that if you're not making them eligible for the subsidies. so we're trying to find out when they are in the temporary status, how do we deal with them in the context of health care. house republicans voted 37 times to repeal obama care, it's hard to have a practical discussion about what you're going to do on the ground. >> you just mentioned that it sounds like the negotiations happening on your side of capitol hill, which is the house, are breaking down over this insistence by republicans

that folks on their way to citizenship not qualify for the subsidies of obama care. they are still going to pay taxes and pay social security. just this obama care thing. do you understand that, as a rational obsession with obama care, we are just a bad faith effort to destroy the bill? >> look, i think people should look at it economically. when people are paying in, paying taxes, they should get the same benefits. you can't have somebody required to have coverage if they can't afford it. the whole thing breaks apart because people won't register and come forward which is the whole purpose of the bill. look, in the coming days, republicans need to put up or shut up. is this an excuse not to do immigration reform or do they have ideas on how to make it better and more workable? we're going to find out in the coming hours and days. >> jared polis, democrat from colorado, thank you for joining me. >> thank you, chris. joining me now is victoria defrancesco soto and charles pierce.

victoria, i want to start with you. i'm going to jump over and take the marco rubio side which is, look, ma'am, we are trying over here in the senate but these dudes in the house are for real. they hate this stuff. and unless we can make this bill more conservative, they are going to kill it anyway so what do you want from me, poor marco rubio, i'm sweating here. >> you know, if i want to get to the white house, i essentially need to appeal to both the republican constituency and general constituency. what we're seeing here is let me tamp down the bill to go to my republican base to get their support and that way when i go to the general electorate, i can also show that i made the effort and maybe it's not the ideal bill. maybe it's not the bill that, you know, is the best thing for the 12 million latinos but he's going to come out and say, something is better than

nothing. and that's what we've seen with republicans. we're putting our best foot forward. we want to recruit latinos into the party so we're going to do something, it may not be the best but it's something. >> something is better than nothing presumes that he wants a something and charlie, what is your read on the politics of this. about whether the incentives are there for marco rubio to deal or for anyone in congress to deal. i think they wanted a deal the day after election day. i'm not so sure now. >> i think they wanted a deal the day after election day and then everybody once again in the senate stood up and took a look down the hallway and realized what they were dealing with. this is a party where, if there was one rake in the entire state of kansas, this party to step on, basically. >> okay. but here's my question. if that's the case, if it's the house that's going to be required for killing this, this is my fear, is that a small

group of house republicans who are not going to be accountable to a national constituency, they are going to be the ones to kill it and everyone else in the upper echelons, including marco rubio, are going to walk away like they tried their best. my question to you is, will it stick to marco rubio if it fails? >> well, i don't know that it will stick as far out. if he wants to try to play this both ways, i wish him as much luck as mitt romney in the health care primaries. mitt romney got beat up pretty badly for the wonderful things he did here in massachusetts. >> and that is, of course, precisely the fear that marco rubio has. here is mitt romney getting to the right of a lot of his opponents in the primary on this issue in immigration on the primary. listen to how mitt romney sounded on this in the primary. >> the question is, if i were elected and congress were to pass a dream act, would i veto it? and the answer is yes.

>> we hired a lawn company to mow our lawn and they had illegal immigrants working there. >> they said, look, we can't have any illegal immigrants working for our property. i can't have illegals. almost half of the jobs created in texas were created for illegal immigrants. >> that is an absolute falsehood on its face. >> if you go to the university of texas, if you're an illegal alien, you get an in-state tuition discount. if you're an illegal alien. >> vicky, this is the same republican base that the house republican caucus is responsible to and that the presidential candidates are going to have to win a primary from. >> it is. and chris, i want to point something out, though, that we've been assuming that the senate is looking to the house and trying to act accordingly but also let's think about the possibility that the house could act in response to the senate if the senate, especially the gang of eight really stood up, stood

firm and said, look, we are going to take charge of this issue and it is going to be one where we fold and latinos, so the house would move. the senate keeps blaming the house. they need to stop that. they need to take their own responsibility and marco rubio has flip-flopped since the beginning. i am not surprised that he is pulling this. in 2010, he ran away from immigration. remember, he came up with the tea party and then just a couple weeks ago he said, oh, things are moving too fast, it's getting too hasty. and now he has cold feet. >> marco rubio, if this happens and a deal happens, he will get the credit he deserves. if it doesn't get done, he owns the failure. he cannot pawn it off on some one else. and what you just said, vicky, is key. if the senate passes, there's a chance. if it doesn't, he doesn't get to blame it on the house. vicky and charles, thank you both.

if you thought john mccain and the benghazi truthers had claimed the political scalp of susan rice, you would be as wrong as they were when the president named her his national security adviser. we'll delve into that next.

republicans tried to pre-emptively knock susan rice out as secretary of state but president obama appointed her as his next national security adviser. and there is intrigue in yankee stadium. those stories are coming out.

if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. >> that was the president defending his ambassador to the united nation, susan rice, back in november, from constant, brutal political attacks led by john mccain and lindsey graham. all for her appearance on some sunday talk shows in the wake of the attack in benghazi, libya, during which she outlined a setting talking points from officials on their best assessment at the time of what had just happened in benghazi.

those talking points, we later learned, were not prepared by ambassador rice or edited by her in any shape, way, or form. but susan rice, who was then widely reported to be a top contender to replace hillary clinton as secretary of state was outed from her. >> nbc news has been told that susan rice is withdrawing her name as the next secretary of state. >> i withdrew my name because i think it's the right thing for the country and for the president. >> this is so dramatic. they are trying to figure out how republicans, his top choice for secretary of state, without benefit of a nomination or a hearing. >> however they managed, republicans did do that. they did pre-emptively knock susan rice out of secretary of state. but today president obama got the last laugh. because today the president announced none other than susan rice has his new national security adviser that does not

require confirmation from the senate. john mccain was left with no other recourse and just sputtered around and announced a tweet. obviously i disagree with potus appointment of susan rice as national security adviser. yes, he will. because unfortunately, for senator mccain, he has no other choice. joining me now is joan walsh, editor at large for salon and author of the book, "what's the matter with white people, finding our way in the next america." okay. susan rice was so screwed on this whole benghazi thing. just to make as -- i mean, she had nothing to do with it. why was she the target? i still don't get it. why did lindsey graham and john mccain -- what do they have against susan rice? >> i don't get it either. john mccain, calling it passive aggressive, rand paul was

aggressive, aggressive, accused her of lying again and said she was responsible for misleading the american people against benghazi. when we got those talking points memos and saw even in the weird abc version and the white house official version, the one thing those versions agreed on was that susan rice had nothing to do with it. her staff either. people said that she deserved an apology and lindsey graham shot back she deserves a subpoena. so they keep it up. i can't help but think it has something to do with her closeness to the president, her being a woman, all of the garbage about her not being very smart, according to senator mccain, and incompetent, according to lindsey graham, has creepy gender and -- >> i just want to say this also and i want to talk about her new position, because it's quite a powerful one. >> yes, it is. >> but also it's not the craziest thing to me that they were trying to look out for their bro, john kerry, who they have known for a long time, who was in the senate with them, who has served on committees with them.

that to me at the end of the day -- i'm not saying this to take anything away from john kerry himself, but that also looked like what was going on. >> that's what a secretary of state is supposed to look like and that's what they are used to and i thought about it again today, too, because you have that incredible visual of the president standing there with susan rice and samantha power, two relatively young women, two people you couldn't imagine john mccain and mitt romney singling out in his administration. there's a powerful symbolism and there's a break with that old boys network. of course, we've had women secretaries of state. john kerry got a little affirmative action to get that position back. so i want to make that clear. >> until this position, which i think is also fascinating about the twists and turns of the susan rice and the ups and downs of her career in this, she's been very promising and ambitious individual, real washington star for quite some time. she took a real risk by endorsing barack obama very

early on and now she ends up in this position which is in some ways more powerful. it's a good argument to be made, in this white house than john kerry himself. >> yeah. she's close to the president already. she's there. she is -- he's traveling the globe and sure she'll do some of that but basically her job is to be at the president's side. >> she greets him every day. >> every day. she wound up with the most -- they helped give her the more powerful position. i'm sure john kerry is happy with the job he has but she's definitely kept her power, maybe consolidated her power and is the person that the president wants in that role and it's a good day. it's a good day when we saw him appoint three -- >> judges yesterday. >> nominate three judges yesterday and it's a good day that he stuck to his guns and appointed susan rice -- >> and samantha power is being nominated as her replacement. she's going to have a relatively uncontroversial confirmation and she's a journalist and pulitzer

prize winner and american genocide of genocide and america's role and the president read it and now look where she is. >> she's been a little too pro intervention over the years but she's backtracked and she's brilliant and she'll do a great job. >> it's interesting how the syria conversation will go as we go forward. >> and we don't get to discuss libya -- >> actually, she was never allowed to go through the actual confirmation process where it might be hurt in the process. joan walsh, msnbc analyst, thank you. we're getting used to our institutions failing us but it's becoming a punch line for american success. i'll tell you what it is next. she's still the one for you -

you know it even after all these years. but your erectile dysfunction - you know,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.

there's a new wall street journal nbc poll out today that shows declining faith in this country's institutions of the ten institution lists on the poll, including the news media, the federal government and the irs, only the military and auto industry got marks over 25% when it came to having a great deal or quite a bit of confidence in these institutions. not having a whole lot of confidence in this country's institutions has been a dominant theme over the past decade and while major league baseball did not show up in the poll, perhaps no institution better represents the breach of trust that people felt about institutions than

major league baseball. many of us thought that professional baseball has been done with the steroid era, that it was over, a type when the game was ripe of performance enhancing drug use. that is until last night when cnn broke the news that tony bosch has agreed to fully cooperate with major league baseball that could lead to suspensions and the performance enhancing drug scandal would be the largest in american sports history. bosch operated the now defunk by biogenesis. does this mean that it's been a sham? richard, i want to start with the impact of this on the game.

this seems like such a lose-lose. you get this leaked report, all of these names that are out there. now this cloud of suspicion is back hanging over everyone's head and yet it's unclear whether they are ever going to be able to prove the allegations. what is going on? >> well, i think the message for major league baseball in this, chris, is that they are going to be relentless in ferreting out cheaters. the players are angry. you'd be surprised at how angry the players are because this one guy is telling me when there's one positive test, it reflects badly on 500 of us. they don't want the message to be sent that we cheat. it's a terrible message. so every player that's going to cheat, every player that thinks he can cut a corner and when you have competitive people involved in a sport, you're going to have some people look to cut corners. the message for major league baseball is, we're going to go after you. we're going to go after you hard. if big names are brought down, tough luck.

>> let me take the other side of this for a second. you've got a guy who the major league baseball suits, okay, for running this -- operating this clinic on a very novel league theory, you are breaking your employment contract with us. he has no money. he then decides to turn over documentation and names to major league baseball as a result of this lawsuit. why are we supposed to trust this guy? like what standing does this guy have and at the end of the day you can't prove these allegations, isn't this sullying for everyone, baseball comes away looking like they are vindictive, that they are leaking this to the press and layers look like they are all cheaters? >> well, at the end of the day, here's what's going to happen. if you take this to its logical conclusion, we're going to have a room with an arbitrator, ryan braun on one side of the table and tony bosch on the other side of the table and the arbitrator will decide who is right in this.

baseball wants a message that we're not going to tolerate this stuff, we're going to punish the people, we're going to test -- last january baseball became the first sport to have in-season blood test for human growth hormone. >> the joint testing agreement, i agree. it's really quite impressive. what does this say about the effectiveness of that program if in fact there was cheating going on while it was happening and does the leaking of these names to a reporter, almost certainly coming from major league baseball itself build up to make this testing agreement work? >> you know, my impression, chris, is that the player's association, which for years has fought testing, is now walking in concert with the owners that they want this stuff out and as michael weiner toured camps this season, he heard time and again from players, look, a 50-game

suspension has not been a deterrent enough and the players i know best, like lance berkman and matt holliday and chris carpenter, people like that, they are furious that guys are still trying to cut corners. again, in a competitive sport when you have competitive people, you're always going to have this issue. it's going to be a cat and mouse game between the tester and testee and all you can do is keep going at it. >> i want to play this bit of sound that hammers that home from mike schmidt, the nature of being in such a competitive environment. take a look at this. >> what an exciting time for baseball. guys are -- home runs and ridiculous numbers and fans in the ballpark and revenue coming back and the game is back and, man, look how big he got over the winter and, you know, wow. that's kind of like everybody's attitude. it's really something.

this is the future of the game, i guess. >> do you think you would have gotten caught up in something like that? >> most likely. why not? >> he's talking about the huge 1998 home run race and the amazing explosion that happened in what we now call the steroids era. my question to you is, has the game recovered from that bubble and the bursting of that bubble. because i thought it sort of had and the report last night made me think, man, we are not out of the woods of this yet. >> well, if you mean from a financial standpoint, attendance, revenues going through the roof, there's parity in the game that was never there before. if you're talking about players still cheating, i think and i always thought during the height of the steroid era, there were a few guys at the top but i don't think the reports of 50 or 60% using it. and now i think the percentages are very small because what do you risk when you use? you risk the damage of your reputation. >> right. >> you risk the loss of millions of dollars, all that stuff. >> there's a lot of money on the

table. a lot of money. richard justice, mlb.com columnist, thank you very much. we'll be right back with clip three.

one of the more amazing where are they now stories is the man at the center of the infamous driving while black racial profiling case. incredible story. that is coming up. first, i want to share the three most awesomeness things on the internet today. the term is derp, urban dictionary define it is as an ignorant or common reaction is made. derp. and thanks to the internet derp means gift galore, they are found themselves in a derp war when a blogger basically is derpy. and paul krugman weighed in, declaring derp is a waste of

internet. and derp -- this was derp jump the shark moment. you will know if your mom starts using it in her facebook posts next week. the second most awesomeness thing on the internet today, time to check in with embattled mayor ford. several aides quit and this pic was tweeted. a picture of himself and a staffer who clearly drew the short straw. as for the crack-smoking part of the story, the crack video might be gone. we'll continue to monitor this story. in the meantime, while use this on the update as a shameless to show you all of this rob ford footage once again. and the third awesomeness thing on the internet today, lawmakers, friends, and family gathered today to honor frank lautenberg.

it was only fitting that a man known for a sense of humor would have a joke told at his funeral. that's where joe biden comes in. fortunately, a whole slew of reporters and bloggers were not only watching this tribute, they were blogging about it. biden in his element, surrounding by jewish and this one is a lot easier, joe biden, if there's a definition of redundant, i'm it. biden, never make a eulogy or you'll be back at it again and again and again. biden's remarks were well received. you can book him for your next bar mitzvah or next wedding. i mean that literally. you can find this at our website. we'll be right back.

may 8th, 1992, a washington, d.c., public defender named robert wilkins and his family were pulled over after attending a funeral. they were driving on a main artery for crack cocaine. the maryland police issued a

warning so the car driven by wilkins cousin was pulled over by a state trooper who said they were speeding and asked to search the car. wilkins said no. he then identified himself as a public defender and cited supreme court precedent that they could not be held for a dog search without reasonable suspicion they were carrying drugs. the trooper was not moved and asked them if they had, quote, nothing to hide, then what was the problem? and wilkins and his family were forced to stand on the side of the road in the rain while trooper searched the car and found nothing. robert wilkins will go on to sue the maryland state police department for racial discrimination and win because as he said then, i was determined to do something about this because i don't consider myself a victim. i consider myself a warrior. i wanted to make sure that this stopped happening to other people. wilkins' 1993 lawsuit was the driving while black case, the case that led to an outpouring of similar stories from people all over the country.

>> the crime is called dwb, driving while black, a crime committed when an officer racially profiles drivers. it happens to members of his congregation. >> i had one of our associate pastors pulled over with his wife and three of his grandchildren in there and the officer pulled him over and when he pulled him over he said i didn't see your seat belt and then he came up and had all of their seat belts on just because he was black. >> yesterday, that man, now judge robert wilkins, was nominated by president obama to the u.s. court appeals for the d.c. circuit. robert wilkins has spent his life fighting discrimination through the courts and winning and he has just been nominated to the federal bench but the policies he was fighting then, those policies are still very much with us now. they have been established at cities across the family. here in new york, under a policy known as stop and frisk. in new york in 2011, get this, over 168,000 men from the ages of 14 to 24, were stopped on the street and frisked by the nypd.

there are 158,000 men living 14 to 24 living in new york city, 106% of black men, from ages 14 to 24 have been stopped and frisked. 106%. the nypd with the unconditional support have stopped and frisked more black men than there are black men in new york city. racial jim jim nation discrimination is alive and well in the united states. a former baltimore police officer, current professor of criminal justice and author of "cop in the hood" and political analyst at georgetown university, great to have you all. michael, what is your -- i think the wilkins story is so incredible and that quote and i'm a lawyer and then to see him, what does that say to you that the president has made that appointment? >> here's a guy who understands

what it feels like for the average american but especially in this case african-american male who's been subjected to the arbitrary exercise of the state against a vulnerable citizen and now he occupies the second highest court should he be successful, the highest second court in the land. this suggests to me that president obama understanding that jurists should have practical experience and understand what people are up against every day of their lives. >> there were nightly news packages on there, right? >> right. >> how much progress have we made? those were big issues. councilman, how much progress do you think we've made? >> i think being alive while black is still alive in the country. any time you can look at the color of the skin and decide what kind of education opportunities they are going to have, whether or not they have employment opportunities, it's a problem. and if you know that you're going to be stopped 106 times in

new york city, then we know it's a problem. the fact that we call this thing into new york city stop, question, and frisk, it's a problem. most people just call it police work if it's done properly. so it's a huge problem in new york city so the rest of the country met with the department of justice and went down to d.c. they also expressed much concern that this is going on throughout the country. and as you mentioned, at least at its worst, someone being shot and killed i believe because of the color of their skin when they are unarmed or at the least, being arrested and detained for an hour. >> and you were just stopped on the street for no reason? >> i was going to an event that he was invited to with someone else who works then for the public advocate, we were going inside, we showed our credentials to the one of two officers and the officer just stopped. i got on the phone with the chief of police trying to explain to them what was going on. i had my city council pin pen, a big ribbon and i had my badge

and none of that mattered. the problem is, they keep saying the gun, the gun violence, the this black on black crime. you get tired of hearing that. i know where the crime is. i go to the funerals. i go talk to the mothers. the problem is, it's not working. so we keep trying to do things that are not working. >> so this is a question about police work and you worked as a police officer, written about policing, teach about criminal justice. i want to read you -- i want to play for you a sound from ray kelly, responding to the idea that the new york city police are engaged in social profiling through stop and frisk. take a listen. >> people who stop, it's 53% african-american, so really, african-americans are being understopped in relation to the percentage of people being described as being the perpetrators of violent crime. the stark reality is, crime happens in communities of color. >> that's the argument, what's your response to that, peter?

>> two sides that are talking past each other. there is sa problem of black-on-black violence in new york city and other places that need to be addressed. in many ways, that's separate from stop, question, and frisk. in a sense, kelly is right, but he's ignoring how police are going about what should be doing their job, and instead are doing it often without the proper training and to meet quotas. >> will you explain that for a second? >> because they are counted, then police start using them to judge police officers' work. the forum they use has probably increased the number of stop and frisk. >> there's a quo that problem, which we've all seen about hitting the numbers. my question is, does this come from policy or interactions on the ground? i want to get to that question right after we take this break.

a few quick corrections for the record, earlier in the show i was previewing the story we

were talking about and said the president nominated district court judges, they were circuit court judges and said congressman was from utah, he's from idaho, and i said basketball instead of base-ketball. been a pretty durpy night for me. we'll be right back. my research. my doctor and i my research. went with axiron, the only underarm low t treatment. axiron can restore t levels to normal in about 2 weeks in most men. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18 or men with prostate or breast cancer. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur. report these symptoms to your doctor. tell your doctor about all medical conditions and medications. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer; worsening prostate symptoms; decreased sperm count; ankle, feet or body swelling; enlarged or painful breasts; problems breathing while sleeping;

and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness or irritation where applied, increased red blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and increase in psa. ask your doctor about the only underarm low t treatment, axiron.

we're back with jurmaine williams, new york city council members, former police officer, and michael eric dyson. michael, you were just telling a story, which is a story i think almost every black man has, everyone that i've ever talked to. >> i'm 54 years old, detroit, michigan, police in an unmarked car, stopped me and my brother and friend, said we have stolen our car. i was going to pull out my registration. the policeman called me the "n fts word, knocked me on the ground, hit my friend on the ground, ran the registration, saw it was my car, got in their car, drove off, apology. this was the problem -- >> what year was that? >> this was 1978.

progress has been made, but malcolm x said you don't put a knife in my back nine inches, pull it out six inches, and call it progress. black people want the cops to come, but want them to make suitable distinctions between criminals and those not the criminals. we don't make those decisions. >> when you say progress -- >> the word progress -- i like the way chris rock said it, and he said, people just stop acting as crazy. when you say progress, sometimes you're acknowledging the crazy behavior that happened. >> here's my question, if there is progress made institutionally, if this is a question of how do we get policing not to do profiling, that's the question. there's a whole lot of big questions about race and the criminal justice system, but if we have made some progress on that, what has made that progress happen and how do we keep it going? >> progress was what judge wilkens did, until the mid '90s,

profiling was openly and officially practiced. that has changed. >> wait, explain that change. >> particularly in maryland and new jersey is where the lawsuits came out, but the cops had a bad profile based on dea agents who asked cops who they found drugs on and the cops said we found drugs on young black men. >> let me say this, you have kelly saying this, he's saying we're underprofiling, if you looked at more white people, you'd find more white crime. >> that's my point. >> they are not looking at white people. you said on your show last night the drugs were being done by white people. >> gun violence. and i want to make sure -- that's a very big thing in my community, it is gun violence. the problem is, what do we do to get to that, and to this date, and throughout our history, overreliance on enforcement and locking up as many black and latino men has been what we tried to do.

it's weakened. nypd, which is the law enforcement, came out and responded. that should be one community partner. where are the other agencies, where is the partner of mental health, youth development, employment agencies, where are all the other agencies? we have to have change in the discussion about what public safety is. >> we want all of that, plus at the same time people are being stopped. if there were white kids being stopped, we wouldn't have it. we know already it's not about logic or reason. it's about investment and identification. >> we also know -- >> white stops than the black stops. >> we don't know that whites and blacks use drugs at the same amount. >> self reporting of white people is they do a lot more drugs. >> more income, you got more drugs. >> the point is, when you only search one group, that's where you find it. >> this is an important point.

this is a really important point about the root of this, right, if you search one group, that's the group that we should profile, then, of course -- >> once it comes out of washington, suddenly cops feel justified. look, it came out of the dea. >> in new york city, they kept changing the goal of increasing the stops, right? first to get more guns off the streets, less guns, then up until last year, shootings have stayed relatively the same. then they said it was to get murders down, which has decreased, and we're happy about that. but if the same people are getting shot -- >> then the argument becomes, this is working. i've heard this argument from mayor bloomberg. >> look at the precincts, there's no correlation. >> not only that, you're monotizing the pathology. what you're doing is saying we're going to give more money by stopping this stuff, then you monotize pathological behavior as opposed to fixing it structurally.