IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

'The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell' for Thursday, June 6th, 2013

Read the transcript to the Thursday show

June 6, 2013

Guests: Glenn Greenwald

LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, HOST: We have breaking news tonight in the
ongoing story of the government`s collection of your data.

Glenn Greenwald, the man who broke the story about the NSA collecting
records of all Verizon phone calls, is breaking another big story tonight
about your personal data that the government is collecting.

But first, another day, another Darrell Issa hearing on the IRS.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee is holding another hearing on the IRS.

MARTIN BASHIR, MSNBC ANCHOR: We`ve only had six hearings on the IRS.
Shouldn`t we have more?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The laws exclusively --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Exclusively involved in the social welfare.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The laws exclusively in the implementing
regulation is primary.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The regulation says primarily.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why don`t you have to follow the law?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t want to presuppose what the interpretation
of exclusivity is.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have a regulation that I have to abide by. That
uses the word "primary."

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s out of compliance with federal law.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No political group should get this status.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Agencies must follow the law.

REP. DARRELL ISSA (R), CALIFORNIA: This was the targeting of the
president`s political enemies.

The administration is still, their paid liar, their spokesperson.

And lies about it during the election year.

He is still making up things.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There is some concern that Issa may have pushed
it too far.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Congressman Darrell Issa is grilling IRS

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Today, he`s been more measured.

ISSA: I want to thank you. This is a good start. I don`t want to
trap anyone.

No, you`re good? You`re good?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There seem to be a more tempered Darrell Issa.

ISSA: I want to thank the president --


ISSA: -- for appointing you to an acting passion.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There seem to be a more tempered Darrell Issa.

ISSA: It is vexing, I think, to all of us.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Another secret surprise.

ISSA: It is vexing, I think, to all of us.


O`DONNELL: Today, Darrell Issa`s House Committee on Oversight
Government Reform called in the man whom President Obama sent in to fix the
IRS, and finally, in the testimony of acting commissioner David Werfel, the
truth came out, the smoking gun was found and we now have proof that
federal law was violated.


REP. CAROLYN MALONEY (D), NEW YORK: I know the regulation now is more
than 50 years old. But do you know why Treasury changed it from exclusive
to primary?


MALONEY: You do not.

And is there any reason why you think we should not use the exclusive
test today?

WERFEL: I think it`s something that I don`t -- I want to work with
the Treasury Department and committees in Congress to explore. Right now,
I have a regulation that I have to abide by that uses the word "primary."
And so, that`s what I`m working with.


O`DONNELL: Regular viewers of this program learned nothing in that
exchange today, because you`ve all known for weeks now that the law written
by Congress 100 years ago on 501(c)(4) tax status says an organization must
be engaged involved exclusively in social welfare in order to qualify for
that status and the law has said for years that a social welfare
organization is not organized for profit, but operated exclusively for the
promotion of social welfare.

But in 1959, for reasons no one can figure out, the IRS changed the
word in the law exclusively to the word "primarily", in guidance that the
IRS writes for its agents in enforcing the law. In 1959, the IRS violated
the law by changing the law, without congressional authority. That was all
in the hearing today.

If the IRS hadn`t changed that law in 1959, every political
organization applying for 501(c)(4) status would have been rejected and
there would have been nothing scandalous about that.

Today, Washington is pretending its scandalous that the political
organizations applying for the 501(c)(4) status, that they did not deserve,
and should have been met -- they should have been rejected. That the
scandal is that they got -- they didn`t get approved fast enough. They
were all approved. They just didn`t get approved fast enough.

But only a few Democrats in Washington realize what the IRS scandal
really is. Here is Nevada Congressman Steve Horsford.


REP. STEVEN HORSFORD (D), NEVADA: The laws exclusively -- why don`t
you have to follow the law?

WERFEL: Actually, I have to follow the law and regulation.

HORSFORD: So, the law is exclusively.

WERFEL: The law is exclusively and the implementing regulation is
primary. And that`s part of the challenge.

HORSFORD: So the regulation is not in compliance with federal law.


HORSFORD: Correct?

WERFEL: I don`t know that I can answer that question. I think that`s
something that we have to review with --

HORSFORD: Well, you said earlier that primary activity is not the
same as exclusive.

WERFEL: It`s not. And --

HORSFORD: So therefore, it`s out of compliance with federal law. And
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that agencies must follow the law. We as Congress
set the law. We haven`t changed the law from exclusively. And it`s
important that you implement your regulations accordingly. I`m glad to
hear that you`re reviewing that --


HORSFORD: -- with the Treasury, and that you have agreed to some
bipartisan participation, because the law is exclusively.

WERFEL: And I want to be clear. The ambiguity that`s created between
the law saying exclusive and the regulation saying primary is a problem.
And it`s, you know, one of the contributing factors.

HORSFORD: So, therefore, the reg needs to be changed to be in
compliance with federal law. Unless Congress changes the law, that`s the


O`DONNELL: Alex Wagner, I rest my case. I rest my case. My work is
done here.

ALEX WAGNER, MSNBC ANCHOR: Drop the mic. I`m out of here.

CHRIS HAYES, "ALL IN" ANCHOR: I wish a single cable news host had
picked up on this! Who -- I should have been educated about this before

WAGNER: Didn`t even have to start your own 501c4 organization, as I
unwisely suggested several weeks ago. But it is actually -- I feel like
you deserve at least a golf clap for that, because it is a big deal. And
finally, Congress has clued into it.

O`DONNELL: Is there -- did something happen in that hearing today,
besides that, that gives the feel of the wind going out of the sails of
this thing?


O`DONNELL: The Issa politeness, the thank you very much, Mr.
President for this wonderful new director?

HAYES: We sat at this table a week ago. I think it was a week ago,
two weeks ago. And I said, there is no -- there is not the fire -- there
are not enough, like, logs in the fire to keep this burning for very long.

WAGNER: No page 2.

HAYES: There`s not a page 2. And they have -- now, let`s be clear:
they have tried to, like, turn it over to, like, "Star Trek" videos and
offsite conferences and stuff.

WAGNER: For which we thank them.

HAYES: For which us in cable news like "Star Trek" videos, which is
why they have been successful. But this specific issue, I absolutely
agree, has kind of burned itself out.

WAGNER: But Darrell Issa is not going to stop. He, Darrell Issa,
accused the IRS of malicious self indulgence. Let`s unpack that.

Darrell Issa accused someone else of malicious self indulgence. I`m
dropping my mic on that.

O`DONNELL: He was a little kind of pot and kettle thing.

WAGNER: Maybe, just perhaps.

O`DONNELL: So here is the -- what they want to turn it into at
minimum, even if it leaves center stage of Washington hearing rooms and all
of that. And that is what the chairman of the Florida Republican Party put
out in a memo, advice to Republicans about how to exploit the IRS story.

I encourage you to use this in your campaigns when you`re on the
trail. Ask your Democrat opponents. Are you comfortable with the IRS
overseeing your health care? Why would you hold the Obama administration
for their hand in the IRS scandal? How?

WAGNER: I mean, this is the dangerous part of this, I think. Is the
Republican Party is not predicated on any new policy ideas. It is -- I
mean, Mitt Romney`s campaign was built on obfuscation. It`s clear that the
GOP is built on obfuscation. And what they`re going to try and do is use
this as a tool to unwind Obamacare and to undermine the Democratic project
on hold.

And you know what, unfortunately, lies gain traction in modern society
and especially within the Republican base.

Michele Bachmann`s lies about vaccines causing autism are believed by
a fifth of this country. And that`s where the counter narrative has got to
be strong.

HAYES: I would say this --

WAGNER: Which is the truth, by the way. The counter narrative is
actually the truth.

HAYES: On day one, the story this broke, I remember, I think it was
Ted Cruz`s speech writer tweeted out about like this is the same -- these
are the same people who are going to handle Obamacare?

So from the first day they have had their sights on this, A. B.,
that`s a pretty good attack. If I were running as a Republican candidate,
I`d absolutely use that. And, you know what, with all of the stories
swirling around and people sort of reading things out of the corner of
their eyes, that`s absolutely going to be a problematic political attack
for Democrats, no question.

But the third thing of this is, Republicans hate the IRS and they`ve
always hate the IRS.

WAGNER: Everyone hates the IRS.

HAYES: What did Gingrich Congress do after `94? This is just --
they`re doing the same thing all over again. It was a whole other set of
issues there. But they just dragged the IRS before committees, and they
beat them up. They de-appropriated them. They stripped down their ability
to actually do their job.

I mean, this is a long tradition for Republican members of Congress to
go after this agency.

O`DONNELL: And they have also used -- they tried to use this
situation to say, oh, look, this is why there shouldn`t be a tax code. And
instead of saying, hey, wait, this is why you should use the word that`s in
the law exclusively -- they go, no, no, no. This is why you should erase
the entire tax code, get rid of it, get rid of the IRS, so that we`ll just
have a sales tax or something.

WAGNER: It`s substantive proof they`re not actually interested in any
kind of reform. I mean, this would have been the perfect avenue to say,
you know, what let`s have a bipartisan conversation about reforming the tax
code, which is onerous and confusing. But that hasn`t been - that hasn`t
been the result of this. It`s been let`s strike down the tax code, you
can`t trust government and Obamacare is terrible and, by the way, we`re
going to repeal it for the 38th and 39th and 40th time.

O`DONNELL: And this is one of the policy weaknesses of the individual
mandate in health care.

Every policy you make, there is some weakness to it, there`s a
positive to it. One of the weaknesses always was that it does get, quote,
"enforced through the tax code", which is to say, as in Massachusetts, you
just put a little thing on your tax return that says, here`s my health
insurance. And if you have the health insurance, you in effect get a
deduction. If you don`t have the health insurance, you don`t end up
getting that deduction.

It`s just like your mortgage deduction, same thing. But because it
exists in that dreaded IRS, you have opened up this little attack window on
the health care bill.

HAYES: I mean, the grandest irony in all of this, because of
agitation in the legislative process, it`s actually in the law, the
Affordable Care Act, that essentially cannot actually be enforced. They`re
actually statutorily barred -- yes, they`re actually statutorily barred
from reaching in and garnishing the money that they would need to enforce
the provision.

So, actually, at the end of this whole chain of logic, they can`t
enforce the mandate to begin with, because of precisely those complaints.
But you`re exactly right, which is part of the problem here is, there is a
perverse incentive on the part of Republicans to make the paying of taxes
and everything having to do with the IRS as horribly complicated and messy
and terrible as possible to create a Pavlovian response in the American
taxpayer that associates just onerous burden and frustration with the act
of paying taxes.

And there have been for years and years, as you well know, Democrats
and progressives who have proposed all sorts of ways to make paying taxes
easier and simpler. The automatic, you know -- the automatic file that
would cover up 80 percent of taxpayers. And Republicans and conservatives
and Grover Norquist killed it every time, because they want more than
anything is they want complexity, and they want people to feel frustrated
and angry about paying --


O`DONNELL: When I was at the Finance Committee, we used to have
hearings every April about how complex filing was. We had experts come in
who filled out their own tax returns tell us how long it would take them.
It would take them 28 hours.

And we would say, OK, here`s our solution to that. We can do it this
weigh. No movement from --

WAGNER: Isn`t that sort of the Republican project on every aspect of
government at this point? That`s what`s happening with Obamacare. It`s
like state governors aren`t going to opt into the exchanges.

HAYES: To make them bad.

WAGNER: To make them bad. The thing -- the light at the end of the
tunnel here is, look at Minnesota and Wisconsin. OK, Minnesota is going to
have the exchanges.

What if it works? The people of Wisconsin will look over and think,
oh, I am poor, I am sick, I have no health care. Why is it that people a
couple miles over have a functioning system, and one will hope that the
sort off -- the Democratic process will lead to leadership that recognizes
the needs of their actually constituents rather than governing by ideology.

O`DONNELL: But the -- the tragedy of this IRS story is that it has
opened up this -- at the moment when you don`t want it, this particular
attack angle on the Affordable Healthcare Act. When you`re heading into --
up the implementation hill now going right toward it?

HAYES: Yes, I mean -- look, there`s some pulling out today that
suggests it`s a pattern near the bottom of its trajectory in terms of
popularity which I wouldn`t find surprising. There`s been a lot of press
about the impending train wreck.

WAGNER: And money spent.

HAYES: And money spent. The proof in the pudding is in the eating,
which means a year from now or 18 months from now, what`s going to matter
is whether it`s working or not. And you know what, if it doesn`t work --
really, if it doesn`t work, Democrats will pay a price and will deserve to
pay a price.

O`DONNELL: OK. We`re going to have to stop it there, because I have
to finish reading the paper back edition of "The Twilight of the Elites" --

HAYES: Pocket-ready.

O`DONNELL: -- by Christopher Hayes, the hardback edition was
beautiful. And I love the changes, by the way. It`s been beautiful,
brilliant --

HAYES: Lawrence O`Donnell citations in this version.

O`DONNELL: Brilliant touches in here.

Alex Wagner, and Chris Hayes, author of "Twilight of the Elites."
Let`s see what happens on Amazon with that.

HAYES: I`ll be clicking refresh.

O`DONNELL: Check Amazon so we can tell exactly what THE LAST WORD
bump was.

HAYES: I`ll report back next week.

O`DONNELL: All right. Thank you very much for joining us.

HAYES: Thank you.

WAGNER: Thanks, Lawrence.

O`DONNELL: Coming up, the man who broke the story on the government
collecting data on all Verizon phone calls in this country, including mine.
Glenn Greenwald will tell me what I have to be worried about.


O`DONNELL: We have breaking news tonight about the government`s
collection of your data. Glenn Greenwald, the man who broke the story that
all Verizon phone records are being collected by the government, will join
me next. And he will tell us about what the government is also now
collecting from Google, from Facebook, from Apple. That`s the new part of
the story, and that`s next.


O`DONNELL: We have breaking news tonight. New revelations of the
scope of the government`s surveillance of your personal data.

Last night, Glenn Greenwald broke the story that the national security
agency is collecting records of every Verizon phone call made in the United
States and abroad. Tonight, Glenn Greenwald and the "Washington Post" are
together breaking this story that the NSA is tapping into the Internet`s
giant systems to mine user data, including the giants, Google, Facebook,
and Apple. The companies have denied any knowledge of that program.

Glenn Greenwald, who broke both of these stories, will join us later.

But first, let`s get what`s happening in Washington tonight from NBC
News justice correspondent, Pete Williams.

Pete, did the cascading of these stories over 24 hours now -- seems a
little overwhelming, frankly, to keep up with.

presents a couple problems. Number one, these programs are classified. So
we know only what we have been told by members of Congress who are familiar
with them, by government officials who have been authorized to talk about
them, and from other sources that we have talked to.

So, the two programs, the first one, the one first reported, is a
program in which the government stores data from the phone companies. What
happens, basically, is the government collects this information on a daily
basis and builds up, if you will, a huge tank of data, about all the phone
call numbers that have dialed other numbers.

It`s data about the calls themselves. Not the contents, not the names
of the people making the calls. It`s all phone number-based. How long the
call lasted, where the people were who made the calls and so forth.

The government stores the data. And that`s the court order that "The
Guardian" newspaper got its hands on 24 hours ago.

Now, if the government wants to look at that data, our understanding
is that if they have a reason to believe that a phone number they get ahold
of -- let`s say somebody arrests a terrorist and takes the cell phone and
finds that that terrorist has called a bunch of other people, then they
take those phone numbers and run them through the database. They do that
under a system of rules that this FISA, this Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court has approved, and after they do it, they go back and
tell the court what they did. The court monitors that, how that`s done.
The Congress audits it, as well. So that`s the phone system.

Now, the separate thing is one that allows the government to monitor
the internet for suspicious e-mail and Internet traffic. And according to
these reports and officials we have talked to, it allows the NSA and the
FBI tap directly into some of the computer servers of some of the biggest
Internet service providers. And then government analysts can monitor that
traffic to some extent in real-time, to some extent to go back and look

The difference is, this program -- one person says it`s like standing
in the post office and watching out for specific envelopes that go by from
parts of the world or people that are deemed to be troublemakers. And it`s
this program we`re told aimed primarily at communications that have an
overseas connection. They start overseas and come here or they start here
and go overseas. And that`s one of the many differences.

The other difference is that this Internet e-mail program can work in
real-time, whereas the telephone program is all looking at past records of
phone calls.

O`DONNELL: Pete, there`s been a range of reaction in Washington
today, including a lot of lack of surprise -- I guess I would put it as.

Harry Reid, Senate leader, said everyone should just calm down and
understand that this isn`t anything brand-new. It`s gone on for some seven
years. He wasn`t surprised about it.

And other high-ranking senators indicated they were not surprised
about it. They have known about it for a while.

What is your sense about how the government is reacting to the leak?
How shocked are they that this has gotten out there?

WILLIAMS: Well, I guess two answers to that question. One, in terms
of members of Congress, many of them knew about both of these programs,
because the federal government has made it very clear that Congress has
been briefed on these programs and was aware of them.

Now, it may be that many members were not aware of all of the details,
but the law that allows these things to happen, obviously, members of
Congress approved that law, and certainly members of the Intelligence
Committee are well aware of how these things work.

On the other hand, you have the government agencies that carry this
out. And they are shocked that these programs have become public. They
consider them very troublesome leaks. They haven`t said whether these
leaks will trigger a leak investigation.

That`s where we`re a long way from that happening. The intelligence
agencies have to ask the Justice Department to look into it. Prosecutors
have to do so and decide whether to open an investigation. But it does
seem likely, given the really surprising nature of these things. I would
be very surprised if there aren`t leak investigations.

O`DONNELL: Pete Williams, thank you very much for joining us tonight.

WILLIAMS: You bet.

O`DONNELL: And joining me now, the man of the hour from a very
distant connection, "The Guardian`s" Glenn Greenwald.

Glenn, I mentioned it`s a distant connection because we`re going to
have a satellite delay in our conversation.

Pete Williams just referred to the possibility of investigations.
Senator Dianne Feinstein said today she believes this leak -- the first
leak we`re talking about, the Verizon phone calls leak, should be
investigated and it`s pretty clear that that investigation would have to
include you.

GLENN GREENWALD, THE GUARDIAN: Look, let them go and investigate.
There`s this document called the Constitution, and what one of the things
that it guarantees is the right of a free press, which means that as a
citizen and journalist, I have the absolute constitutional right to go and
report on what it is that my government is doing in the dark, and inform my
fellow citizens about that action.

There is this massive surveillance state that the United States
government has built up that has extraordinary implications for how we live
as human beings on the Earth and as Americans in our country, and we have
the right to know what it is that that government and that agency is doing.

And I intend to continue to shine light on that and Dianne Feinstein
can beat her chest all she wants and call for investigations and none of
that is going to stop and none of it is going to change.

O`DONNELL: Glenn, I want you to listen to what Lindsey Graham had to
say today about the Verizon phone calls part of what you`ve been revealing.
Let`s listen to this.


SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: I`m a Verizon customer. It
doesn`t bother me one bit for the national security administration to have
my phone number. Because what they`re trying to do is find out what
terrorist groups we know about and individuals and who the hell they`re
calling. And if my number pops up on some terrorist`s phone, I`m confident
that the FISA court is not going to allow my phone calls to be monitored by
my government.


O`DONNELL: Now, Glenn, he went a little haywire there at the end,
because if his number pops up on a terrorist`s phone, he is going to be
investigated. That`s exactly what they say the point of the program is.

But the first part of what he was saying, I think he may be speaking
for a lot of Americans who say -- I mean, I`m holding my Verizon phone in
my hand. And I think I`ve heard a lot of people today say, I don`t care
that they`re collecting all of the phone calls I make. You know, the phone
company is connecting all of that information anyway.

GREENWALD: Well, I mean, I think it`s notable that one of the most
right wing members of the United States Congress is stepping up to be the
most vocal defender of what the Obama administration is doing and what the
Bush administration did before that. Because at the very right wing
mentality. The idea is that the government should simply know everything
that citizens in a free society are doing, regardless of whether there is
evidence that we have committed any crimes.

There was a huge investigation in the 1970s call the Church Committee,
and what it discovered was that whenever surveillance powers are exercised
in the dark, the government lies about the reasons that they`re surrender
veiling and they abuse that power. They eaves dropped on political leaders
like Martin Luther King and dissidents and opponents of the administration.

And the idea that if you have nothing to hide, then there`s no reason
you should care. People know instinctively that`s false. They put
passwords on their e-mails, they put locks on their bedroom doors. There`s
all kinds of value we have in having privacy as individuals that is
destroyed when we allow the government to monitor and store everything that
we`re doing.

But, of course, the Lindsey Grahams of the world are thrilled with
that, because that`s the mentality in which this is all rooted.

O`DONNELL: Glenn, you broke last night`s story through the British
newspaper, "The Guardian" tonight`s story, teaming up with "The Washington

Tell us about these new developments tonight and the capacity to
collect information from Google and Apple and Facebook.

GREENWALD: Well, in 2008, the United States Congress on a bipartisan
basis created a new spying law called the FISA Amendments Act. And what it
did was eliminated the warrant requirement for the U.S. government to
eavesdrop on all conversations, except ones between Americans domestically.
When an American talks to American, you still need a warrant. But
otherwise if an American talks to somebody outside the U.S., they don`t.

And what this program does, and that law was renewed in 2012, what
this program is does is, when that law was passed, people said well are we
going to prevent abuse if the government doesn`t have to go to a court and
get a warrant, how do we prevent abuse. And the answer was, don`t worry,
they still have to go to the Internet companies and phone companies and ask
for the records they want and that will be a check on abuse.

And this program is a program in which the NSA takes its hands and
sticks it directly into the servers of all of these -- Internet giants,
Facebook, Google, Skype, Apple, YouTube, that people around the world use
to have communications. And let`s the NSA grab whatever it is they want,
either stored e-mails or real-time communication with nobody looking over
their shoulder, nobody watching what they`re doing.

Any analyst in the NSA sitting at a keyboard can at any moment go into
the system and listen to whatever he wants, read whatever he wants and then
store it. It is extremely menacing. And there are no checks.

This is how the world communicates, and the NSA is monitoring it at
all times.

O`DONNELL: Glenn Greenwald, thank you very much for joining us on
this night where you`re breaking this major news. Thank you very much,

Coming up, Chris Christie said it would be irresponsible for a
governor to spend $10 million on a special Senate election in October
before he scheduled a special Senate election in October.

And Rudy Giuliani is back in the rewrite tonight.



FOSTER FRIESS, REPUBLICAN DONOR: Back in my days, they used Bayer
aspirin for contraceptives, the gals put it between their knees and it
wasn`t that costly.

really rare. If it`s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to shut
that whole thing down.

begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something that God
intended to happen.


LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC ANCHOR: In the spotlight tonight, the
Republican party continues to be the party of, quote, "narrow-minded, out
of touch and stuffy old men." That is how the Republican party chairman
described the party he leads back in March.

And this week an all-male group of Republicans on a house judiciary
subcommittee voted to ban all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Democrat John Cornyn who voted against the bill, said no good has ever come
from an all-male committee deciding the law about a woman`s body.
This is not appropriate.

Earlier that same day at a "Washington Post" event on education and
children`s literacy, Mississippi governor Phil Bryant said this in response
to a question about why the country is so mediocre.


GOV. PHIL BRYANT (R), MISSISSIPPI: You want me to tell the truth?
Can I tell the truth? You know, I think parents became -- both parents
started working. And the mom is in the workplace. It`s not a bad thing.
I`m going get in trouble, I can just see. I can see the e-mails tomorrow.


O`DONNELL: Governor Bryant, whose wife was a working mother and whose
own mother was a working mother for at least part of his childhood, then
added --


BRYANT: But now both parents are working, they`re pursuing their
careers, it`s a great America story now that women are certainly in the

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So it`s the mother`s place to teach them to

BRYANT: No, no, no. But I think there was that loving, nurturing
opportunity that both parents had a little bit of time.


O`DONNELL: Joy Reid, I listened to the governor, and he is saying,
oh, no, no, no. Women working is great.


O`DONNELL: What was he saying? I mean, it was like -- I got what he
thought was good.

REID: Yes.

O`DONNELL: What did he think wasn`t good? And I don`t --

REID: It`s kind of hard to tell. Because, you know what, you find
that when these guys start to talk, because you can see he felt he was in
trouble so you saw him immediately starting to dig out. Because, you know,
I think that you have --

O`DONNELL: He was alert enough to know. When a Republican man starts
talking about women --

REID: Not good.

O`DONNELL: He`s in trouble. But he didn`t know, like, where he was
going or what trouble he might get in.

REID: And he had a hard time extricating himself because he wasn`t
exactly quite sure what the Breyer Patch consisted. And I think that what
he was sort of what a lot of man and the conservative movement on the right
are doing which is pining for a past they saw on television when they were

They believe that this sort of old black and white TV version of
America was the better America. You know, the America where gosh darn it,
mom was home and the kids could rely on her to have her apron on and cook
them a nice meal and teach them how to read, you know, when you could pray
in school and all of the things they think would make America a better

But they confronted constantly with the modern world in the form of
their wives and daughters who, you know what, some of them go to work
because they want to, not because they have to. A world in which women get
to run for office and be the boss sometimes at work. And all of these
things that are jarring to them personally. But they don`t quite know how
to explain it in the way the government get them.

O`DONNELL: And you know what else was great about that old world?
Women were school teachers. Because they were frequently not allowed to be
anything else. And the Ruth Bader Ginsburg`s of 50 years ago were school
principals and school teachers, teaching those kids to read.

REID: Yes. No, and I also think that a lot of this is partly
competition in the work force. To be honest with you, I think one of the
things that has been upsetting to a lot of men, particularly after this man
session where you had this recession heavily concentrated on male
unemployment, is this idea that now men are not just nurturing wives,
marrying, having kids with them. They`re actually competing with them.
they are competing with them in the workplace. And this makes a lot of
guys uncomfortable.

And I do think you still have an obsession. It is on obsession on the
right with controlling women, controlling their fertility, controlling them
and making sure that, you know, everything they do has a man kind of at the
head of it, making the decision. It is an obsession and they need to get
over it, if they`re ever going to move forward as a party.

O`DONNELL: One of their obsessions as a party is abortion. And the
problem is, women having abortions and they just seem to then push out from
that into kind of aiming blame at women in very strange situations.

REID: Yes. And if you look around the world, one of the ways in
which a country gets to be a first world sort of economy is by women having
more control over their fertility, over their own bodies, over
reproduction, being able to limit the number of children. This is sort of
common to economists all around the world. But this is the way that you
advance a society, is by having women have more autonomy.

What you have in the ultimate first world country, the United States,
is a group of men who are trying to push women backward, and try to take
away their autonomy, give it back to men, give men more control over the
economy, more control over the household, more control over the women. It
is so odd and an canonistic in the United States in the 21st century, but
this is what is happening.

O`DONNELL: Joy Reid, thank you very much for explaining Republican
men`s attitude, Republican-elected officials` attitude towards women. I
don`t know if we`re ever going to figure that out. Thank you, Joy.

REID: Thanks.

O`DONNELL: Coming up, Chris Christie was opposed to paying for
special elections before he was in favor of paying for it.

And the urban legend, Rudy Giuliani is in the rewrite tonight. He has
once again provoked me to remind you how much damage that man did to New
York on 9/11.



things that didn`t help my campaign, either. Obviously, a hurricane with a
week to go before the election stalled our campaign. But, you know, you
don`t --

Christie as much as some other people?

ROMNEY: No, I wish the hurricane hadn`t happened when it did, because
it gave the president a chance to be presidential and be out showing
sympathy for folks. That`s one of the advantages of incumbency.


O`DONNELL: Did you see how the happy idiot with the big smile said I
wish the hurricane didn`t happen when it did? I wish the hurricane never
happened. Never killed any of those people. His objection is just to the
scheduling of the hurricane. The "rewrite" is next.


O`DONNELL: Here is urban legend, Rudy Giuliani pretending last night
that back in his days as mayor of New York, he was a successful terrorism


competent decisions were made, the four people in Benghazi who are now dead
would now be alive, and I`m not just talking about that t. I`m talking
about in the six months before that. I believe that political necessities
trumped sensible security decisions. There is no possible way, if I had
found out for six months that one of my police precincts was being attacked
I would deprive of it security. And if I did, there is no possible way the
New York press corps would let me get away with it.


O`DONNELL: No possible way. No. No.

You know, the fact that Rudy Giuliani was an unwitting accomplice of
Al-Qaeda`s has mostly escaped attention outside of New York which is why
Giuliani was in Boston today campaigning with Republican Senate candidate
Gabriel Gomez at the location of the Boston marathon bombing.

For the moment, never mind the depravity of Giuliani and Gomez using
the Boston marathon location as a political campaign stop. Let`s, tonight,
focus on the decisions Rudy Giuliani made that killed fighters on 9/11.
Here`s what happened when Giuliani tried to play his super hero role while
testifying to the 9/11 commission in New York City.


O`DONNELL: That was the mother of a New York city firefighter who was
telling Giuliani that her son was murdered because of Giuliani`s
incompetence. The World Trade Center was attacked by al-Qaeda in 1993.
The bombing killed six people and injured more than a thousand. A report
issued later showed that the firefighters` radios did not work when they
responded to that first attack on the world trade center eight years would
have 9/11. Giuliani took seven years to replace those radios. And he did
it through a sweetheart deal w a no-bid contract. Six months before 9/11,
Giuliani replaced the defective radios with a new set of radios that also
did not work.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: At 9:32 a.m. on September 11th, chief
Callan ordered all FDNY members in the north tower to the lobby. He
repeated the command, but not a single company answered. At 9:59, the
south tower collapsed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mayday, trapped in the rubble!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: FDNY`s chief Pieffer repeated the order for all
units to evacuate the north tower. Firefighters had 56 minutes after the
first call, and 29 minutes after the second order to get out. While all
police officers left the building, 129 firefighters never made it out.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That day my son was working. And they didn`t hear
the call, 121 guys didn`t hear the call in the north tower to get out. And
they -- and the police officers heard it, because their radios worked. And
ours diplomat. Didn`t.


O`DONNELL: The 9/11 commission which included politician friends of
Rudy Giuliani concluded a technical failure of FDNY radios was a
contributing factor to many of the firefighter fatalities in the north

Now, there is an official finding that Rudy Giuliani`s gross
incompetence and possible corruption in awarding a no-bid contract cost
firefighters their lives. Giuliani has never apologized. And he has more
to apologize for than just that. He made more contributions to the chaos
of 9/11. He violated every professional recommendation about where to
locate the emergency command and control center, the professionals wanted
to locate it in Brooklyn, out of the way of potential terrorism targets.

Giuliani, against everyone recommendation, decided to actually locate
it in the World Trade Center, because he wanted it to be within walking
distance of city hall, both for him and for the media, he hoped, would
follow him there in any situation so he could be on camera as much as he
loved being on camera.

He was warned by his police commissioner not to locate the World Trade
Center, which -- in that -- not to locate the emergency command center at
the World Trade Center, because the commissioner already was calling that
ground zero. Because of the prior attack by Al Qaeda on the World Trade
Center. But Rudy Giuliani ignored him.


EDDIE BROWN, FIREFIGHTER: I was down there on 9/11 that day. I`ve
seen police detectives yelling in the streets we told him not to put it
here. You know? Because that was the target of the terrorists.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: Mayor Giuliani was running on the
street, and he was talking to the media instead of being in a controlled


O`DONNELL: And today Rudy Giuliani was walking on the street where
the Boston marathon bombing occurred. Talking to the media.

There was probably no one on that street who knew what Giuliani did to
add to the death toll on 9/11. But New York firefighters and their
families will never forget.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The things that we needed to do our job even
better, we didn`t have. Because of his administration.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So ultimately, the mayor of New York at the time,
Mr. Giuliani, he has to bear these responsibilities.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And I blame Giuliani. He was the leader that day
and he was the leader for eight years leading up to that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I wish I could put him on the stand where he
would have to put his hand on the bible and swear to tell the truth.




JON STEWART, TV HOST: What are you up to, Christie?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: Big Democratic turnout for booker could
help Christie`s opponent.

STEWART: That is such a self-serving corrupt abuse of power. I miss
New Jersey so much!



STEWART: It`s just hard to see corrupt abuse of power and not think
about home.



O`DONNELL: Up next, more with the jersey boys. Jon Stewart and Chris



STEWART: I`ll tell you the one option he`s not going to take, that
weird October special election. You know, the one that is going to happen
three weeks before the general? I know he`s not going to do that, because
in 2009, governor Christie commented specifically on what he would do when
he was asked, and this is true. If Frank Lautenberg died.

GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: I don`t think any responsible
governor at this point would call for a special election that would cost
$10 million.

STEWART: What did governor Christie choose?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: Christie set a special election for
October 16th.

STEWART: What the --!



O`DONNELL: The governor, who was for election austerity before he was
against it, announced this today.


CHRISTIE: I tend to appoint New Jersey state attorney general Jeff
Chiesa, to be New Jersey`s next United States Senator. Attorney general
Chiesa has chosen not to seek the office of United States senate. He will
not be a candidate in the primary or general election.


O`DONNELL: The attorney general then said this about his politics.


SEN. JEFFREY CHIESA (R), NEW JERSEY: This is all pretty new. And I
need to learn about the issues in a way before I can make any meaningful
judgments on the specifics. I`m a conservative Republican. I would say
generally speaking.


O`DONNELL: And today Governor Christie continued to face questions on
his very expensive taste in election scheduling.


CHRISTIE: We would have been sued for 2014. A $12 million cost,
while not insubstantial is, I don`t think, something in the context of a
$32 billion budget. Something that should dissuade us from giving people
an opportunity to get an elected United States senator down there as
quickly as we can.


O`DONNELL: OK. But Steve Kornacki, he didn`t say why he didn`t fold
this into the governor`s race which happens three weeks later. He was
explaining, here`s why we`re not going to do it over a year later.

explain why because it`s a very sort of self-serving explanation and the
explanation. It`s a little bit wanting to pad his own margin in the
governor`s race. He wants to make it as high as possible. But, what is
really is, New Jersey Republicans have an opportunity, they really never
get in New Jersey. And that is with no Senate race, with only the
governor`s race on the ballot, they`re going to be winning the top of the
ticket race by a very substantial margin in the governor`s race.

In every single candidate for the state legislature, the Republicans
runs underneath Chris Christie on the ballot this fall. So coat tails for
Republicans of New Jersey, it is a very new and rare concept for
representatives of New Jersey. And they don`t want to mess it up because
Christie sees an opportunity to get a lot more friends in the legislature
if he`s the top of the ticket.

O`DONNELL: I heard he picked the attorney general, OK, that makes
sense. This is a statewide elected official. Except in New Jersey, it
isn`t. They don`t all like their attorney general. So he`s a man of
mystery. And there he is, saying I`m a conservative Republican. What does
that mean in New Jersey?

KORNACKI: Well, in New Jersey, a conservative Republican, you are
about to see a conservative Republican, because Chiesa is not going to be
running for the seat, and because of the very, you know, truncated
timetable, because it`s not going to be on the ballot with Christie, no
other real sort of serious heavyweight Republican wants to be in this race.

There is only one candidate at this point, looks like only one
candidate on the Republican side. His name is Steve Lonegan, and he was
the conservative opponent of Chris Christie in the 2009 Republican primary.
He also ran for governor in 2005. My first exposure -- one of the first
things I remember about Steve Lonegan was in 2005 when I was a reporter in
New Jersey.

On Martin Luther King day, he held an event on Martin Luther King
boulevard in Newark, New Jersey to stage his opposition, his sympathetic
opposition to affirmative action. He chose that day, that setting, that
street to do that. That was -- that is where Steve Lonegan is coming from.
Steve Lonegan is very active in the anti immigration side.

O`DONNELL: How is the new guy going to vote in the Senate between now
and October?

KORNACKI: It`s a mystery. I mean, I don`t think -- I think, you
know, basically, you know, if there is an issue that Christie really wants
him to leaning one way or the other on, you know, he`ll probably go that
way. Otherwise, I think he`s pretty much looking at a party line guy.

O`DONNELL: But even with this party that`s run Mitch McConnell in a
way that most people in New Jersey don`t like.

KORNACKI: Yes, I mean, I think this is something where Christie is
clearly not looking to make noise with this. So I think the idea is, here
is to send somebody down probably not going to be noticed that much between
here and October.

Now, if something were to come up like earlier this year when Sandy
aid became a big issue in Washington and Christie wanted to make a show of
it, no, there is a senator who, you know, I think would be willing to go
along with whatever Christie would need in a battle like that. But
otherwise, I don`t think this is a senator going to stand out in any way.

O`DONNELL: Steve Kornacki, the man I have been dying to hear from on
New Jersey politics, Last Word`s senior New Jersey political analyst.
Thanks you very much for --

KORNACKI: Good week for that title.

O`DONNELL: Yes. Thank you. Steve.

Chris Hayes is up next.


Copyright 2013 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>