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

'The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell' for Wednesday, June 12th, 2013

Read the transcript to the Wednesday show

June 12, 2013

Guests: Mavanee Anderson

LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, HOST: Tonight, in a LAST WORD exclusive, a friend
of Ed Snowden will join me to tell us what she wants you to know about her
friend who is still hiding tonight in Hong Kong.


STEPHEN COLBERT, COMEDIAN: Let`s get straight to the story everyone
is talking about.





COLBERT: The NSA knows what everyone is talking about.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The head of the National Security Agency is going
to be back on the Hill today.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The head of the NSA is going to testify.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Army General Keith Alexander will face some tough

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In front of a Senate Appropriations Committee
this afternoon.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m trying to look at the NSA background for this

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: NSA leaker Edward Snowden.

EDWARD SNOWDEN, NSA LEAKER: I`m no different from anybody else.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We keep hearing that Snowden had skills.

SNOWDEN: I don`t have special skills.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The access he had, I think we all need to be
concerned about it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think all of us need to be concerned about this
sort of thing.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There`s all been a real disconnect up here about
who knew, who didn`t know.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The ACLU filed the first lawsuit Tuesday.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The ACLU filed a lawsuit.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To challenge the constitutionality of these
surveillance programs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The revelation of these programs could lead to
even more lawsuits.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who are you suing?

SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: Well, it`s the constitutionality.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Four civil libertarians are raising these issues
very dramatically.

PAUL: I object to the whole principle.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The NSA has been tracking our call records, e-

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s very, very difficult to have a transparent

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Even our personalized birthday cakes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Based upon secret interpretations of the law.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Complain all you want about that, but it`s how we
caught Osama bin Laden.


O`DONNELL: Tonight, NSA leaker Ed Snowden is holed up in a secret
location in Hong Kong. That`s according to today`s "South China Morning
Post", which got the first interview with Snowden since he revealed his
identity to "The Guardian."

Snowden said that according to unverified documents seen by "The
Post", the NSA had been hacking computers in Hong Kong and on the mainland
since 2006. He says this about his decision to seek refuge in Hong Kong.
"I am not here to hide from justice. I am here to reveal criminality. My
intention is to ask the courts and the people of Hong Kong to decide my

Here is what the father of Ed Snowden`s girlfriend told reporters.


strong convictions of right and wrong. And it kind of makes sense, but --


O`DONNELL: Today, members of the Senate Appropriations Committee
asked the NSA director why an IT specialist who dropped out of high school
had a top secret security clearance.


SEN. DICK DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: I`m trying to look at the resume
background for this individual who had access to this highly classified
information at such a young age with a limited educational and work
experience, part of it as a security guard. And ask you if you`re troubled
that he was given that kind of opportunity to be so close to important
information that was critical to the security of our nation.

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER, NSA DIRECTOR: I do have concerns about that. I
think those absolutely need to be looked at. I would point out that in the
IT arena, in the cyber arena, some of these folks have tremendous skills to
operate networks.

SEN. BARBARA MIKULSKI (D), MARYLAND: We keep hearing that Snowden had
the skills, well, maybe he did. You know, but just because you`re a
swimmer and you`re a champion swimmer doesn`t mean we ought to make you a
Navy SEAL.

ALEXANDER: The IT infrastructure was out-sourced. They don`t have
total access, but they get key parts to it.


O`DONNELL: In 2007, the CIA stationed Ed Snowden in Geneva,
Switzerland, to maintain security. Snowden told "The Guardian,", "Much of
what I saw in Geneva really disillusioned me about how my government
functions and what it`s impact is in the world.

He said it was during the stint in Geneva that he thought for the
first time about exposing government secrets. While in Geneva, Ed Snowden
was in close contact with Mavanee Anderson.

Today, Mavanee Anderson wrote an op-ed in the "Chattanooga Times Free
Press" saying, quote, "I don`t work for the CIA or NSA but I obtained top
secret clearance for a position I held in Geneva when I met Ed. My
security clearance allowed him to talk to me as a friend about some of the
things that weighed on his mind and conscience.

He never divulged anything to me. He should not have. He spoke in
the context of the information I already knew. And in a general sense
about the stresses and burdens of the work he performed. He was already
experiencing a crisis of conscience of sorts."

Joining me for an exclusive interview is Mavanee Anderson. Thank you
very much for joining me tonight.


O`DONNELL: Mavanee, so you had a security clearance when you were
there. Were you working as a contractor also?

ANDERSON: I was not. And I guess I`ll just say, so it doesn`t seem
mysterious at all, and because I think that it is information that can be
readily gotten online, I was a U.S. intern at -- I was a legal intern at
the U.S. missions of the United Nations. And I had a top security

O`DONNELL: Well, that sounds a little confusing I think, to us,
Mavanee, that an intern would have that type of security clearance just
that the Senate was a little surprised today that Ed Snowden would have
that type of security clearance.

Are these security clearances, would you say they are easier to obtain
than we out here, outside of the intelligence community realized?

ANDERSON: I think they`re actually rather difficult to obtain. And I
think that it is important that people understand -- I mean, I don`t want
to get too far into this. Because really what I want to talk about is my
friendship with Ed, and my experience with him, as a friend. And I want to
focus on that.

But I did have a top secret security clearance. I did not have the
sort of access that he had. And we did not talk about anything that I did
not already know. So --

O`DONNELL: Did he -- did he consider quitting this line of work? He
was already expressing that he was disillusioned about it back then?

ANDERSON: Yes, he considered -- he considered leaving it. And I was
in contact with -- in close contact with him from the summer of 2007, as I
say in my op-ed, from the summer of 2007 until around, you know, around the
beginning of 2009.

And we haven`t been in close contact since them. And the fault is
probably more mine than his. I am not very good at keeping up with
friends. But -- during that time -- sorry, I`m trying to collect my

O`DONNELL: Go ahead, take your time, take your time.

ANDERSON: Thank you. I have to think very seriously about what
things I want to divulge and what things I don`t want to divulge, because
I`m worried about him, mainly. But during that time period, he did quit
the CIA.

So, I knew that he was having a crisis of conscience, of sorts,
although I feel like for anyone who sort of self-reflective and
introspective and who is in -- who does the type of work that he did, I
feel like there must be points in time when they question the types of
things that they do, or that they have to do. The decisions they have to
make, the lies they have to tell, or the obfuscations, even, just to people
they`re in relationships with, or to friends who don`t know what they do.

O`DONNELL: Mavanee, just watching you answering these questions,
publicly, I think it`s a reflection for people -- seriously -- about just
the kind of stresses involved and that kind of life.

You know, I notice that he grew up in Maryland, really in the shadow
of the NSA, the neighborhood very, very close to the NSA. And I`m
wondering if that location had something to do with what got him into this
line of work.

ANDERSON: You know, I can`t speak to that. That is not something I
would know about.

O`DONNELL: Do you know how he got started in this field to begin
with? What drew him to it?

ANDERSON: I know that he is brilliant at IT. And so, I don`t know
what may have drawn him to become a part of the CIA. But I assume that it
-- that he wanted to make a difference in the world. And so, I think he
wanted to use the IT skills that he had, these special skills that he had
in order to make a difference, in a patriotic sort of way.

O`DONNELL: He -- there are a lot of things he says that sound to me,
anyway, to be very naive. For example, he talked to "The Guardian" about
his interest in joining the armed forces, was based on the desire to go to
Iraq and do good. And then he was very surprised in military training and
this is what I found astonishing, and astonishingly naive.

He was surprised that the military training concentrated so much on
killing people. Did he really not know that that is what the military is
actually there to do, is actually kill people in war? Could he be that

ANDERSON: I don`t think he was questioning whether or not you are
trying to kill people when you join the military. I`ll say I was surprised
that -- when he told me that he had joined the Army and why and has reasons
for it. But I don`t know, perhaps he is naive, or perhaps he is just a
patriot who wants to do his part for the country.

O`DONNELL: Well, on the patriot question or the general motivation
question, because the word "patriot" to me, I`m not sure what it means in
almost any context, but especially not in one. But when he did quit the
CIA, you said, but he got back in, and he got back in having already -- or
into the intelligence community, anyway, NSA contractor, that sort of
thing. And he did that after already being disillusioned, expressing that
to me, telling you about the stresses and the difficulties of the
dishonesties involved.

Do you think he may have gotten back in with the intent of actually
doing something like this from within the system?

ANDERSON: I am doubtful that that is the case. As I said, I knew he
was having a crisis of conscience. But I am still surprised, even shocked
that he would -- he never gave me any indication that he would reveal
anything that was top secret.

So, I am still very surprised. I -- you know, this is only
supposition on my part, because I don`t know why he decided to work for the
NSA after being disillusioned, but it could be that he has a certain skill
set. And he had experience on his resume.

And he already knows a great deal about that world. And that is what
he knows how to do. So --

O`DONNELL: I want to listen to something he said about his ability to
wiretap the -- and if he chose to, the president`s e-mail. Let`s listen to
this statement that he made on video.


SNOWDEN: My desk certainly -- certainly had the authorities to
wiretap anyone from you or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the
president if I had personal e-mail.


O`DONNELL: And, Mavanee, that sounds grandiose to a lot of people and
there are some experts that came out since hearing that saying, no, that`s
not possible, there`s no interpretation, technical or otherwise, in which
they think that is possible. Do you think that some of the things that he
has been saying and some of the things he said on that video are

ANDERSON: My experience with him, in my experience, he was not prone
to exaggeration, so -- I mean, certainly, I don`t know -- I did not do --
I`m not an IT person, I did not do the sort of things that he did, I didn`t
have the sort of access that he had. I don`t know what he was capable of
doing and what he was not capable of doing.

But really, I`m here to speak to the fact that he is a friend of mine.
I think a lot has been made of the fact that he didn`t graduate from high
school. And what I find interesting about that is that he made a big deal
of it just in our day to day conversation as friends. I think he was
slightly embarrassed about it, which I find interesting because he did end
up getting a GED, he did take some take college courses and he`s an IT

And in my mind, an IT person often comes to that knowledge on their
own. And so you know, someone such as Bill Gates, for example, I don`t
think he ever graduated from college. So you know, I feel like a lot of IT
people teach themselves. And I always considered him to be -- I don`t
know, because I didn`t supervise him, I didn`t do the sort of work that he
did, but I always thought of him as sort of an IT genius, so for what it`s
worth, from a friend.

O`DONNELL: Right. And did he ever talk about his view of the world
and his view of politics and the way things should be that -- I understand
his expressions of disillusionment, but did he ever say you know, we
shouldn`t be doing this, and we should be doing X instead?

ANDERSON: No, and I mean, we were friends and I don`t remember having
-- I don`t remember having a lot of political discussions with him. So,
this is not really something I can speak to.

I can speak to his character. I can speak to the fact that in my
opinion, he was always a loyal friend and a good guy. He was very
introspective. He thought long and hard about things -- he thought long
and hard about the consequences of things before doing things, in my
experience with him.

O`DONNELL: I want to play you something that Ron Paul said during the
last presidential campaign, because as we now know, Ed Snowden contributed
to Ron Paul`s campaign, and presumably, if he voted, possibly, voted for
him. So let`s listen to what he said about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda,
which was a specific interest, obviously, of Ed Snowden`s.


FORMER REP. RON PAUL (R), TEXAS: Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have
been explicit, they have been explicit. And they wrote and said that we
attacked, we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in
Saudi Arabia. You do not give Palestinians fair treatment. And you have
been bombing -- I didn`t say that -- I am trying to get you to understand
what the motive was behind the bombing.

At the same time, we had been bombing and killing hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis for 10 years. Would you be annoyed? If you`re not
annoyed, then there is some problem.


O`DONNELL: Did Ed Snowden say that, for example, like Ron Paul, that
he thought that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were provoked in their actions
by actions of the United States?

ANDERSON: I don`t remember having conversations about that. So I
really can`t speak to that. I`m sorry.

O`DONNELL: And just one more detail of that kind. Anything about
Israel, Ron Paul, for example wants to end all aid to Israel? Was that
something that Ed Snowden thought about very much?

ANDERSON: Sorry, I wouldn`t -- again, that`s not something I would

O`DONNELL: OK. And you said in your piece that you would have
advised him, you wished you had a chance to advise him not to do what he
did in terms of this security breach.

Why do -- would you have advised him not to do this?

ANDERSON: You know, I think national security is really important.
And I don`t know -- I would have counseled him to take a more measured
approach. I don`t condone breaking the law. I`m an attorney, and so I
think I -- you know, can`t condone breaking the law, really.

But I actually do believe in -- I do believe in law, which is one of
the reasons why I find it -- I find the current debate interesting. And
the idea of national security versus privacy and whether or not there has
been some executive overreach. I find all of that an important dialogue
for to have. But I would have counseled him to perhaps go about things in
a different way through activism, through lawsuits, but not through leaking
top secret information.

O`DONNELL: Do you agree with him, with your experience that the --
that our national security apparatus and intelligence community is what he
calls, his words, the architecture of oppression?

ANDERSON: That`s not something that I would say.

O`DONNELL: And what I`m wondering about there, is -- does he go to a
level of exaggeration -- I mean, I can understand having sensations that
point in that direction, but that statement, for example, strikes me as a
very serious overstatement about what for him is a very serious matter.

ANDERSON: Perhaps it is an overstatement. But again, you know, I`m
not privy to all the information that he was privy to. But I mean, I
generally speak of things in a more measured way.

O`DONNELL: Well, I guess the final point that I want to raise about
him as a person, because you`re our insight into that. His sense of
balance, his ability to balance things and his ability to balance
conflicting things at the same time, which is an intellectual maturation
process -- which, by the way, we hope occurs to some degree in college.

Which is one of the reasons, I think, whether they said or not, that
some of the senators were surprised, and I think Barbara Mikulski was
getting at it, saying, you know, you can be a great swimmer, doesn`t make
you a Navy SEAL, because there is more that -- that what the personality
has to include in order to be an IT guy for the NSA. You may be a
perfectly great guy for the NSA or Google, but not have the kind of
maturity in the NSA.

And what I`m wondering is -- is this personality, has it developed
that kind of maturity that can balance these kinds of things and look at
certain things and have a perspective on them? Or is it a personality that
allows certain aspects of things to get exaggerated, and he can look at the
United States government and think of it as the architecture of oppression?

ANDERSON: You know, I`m thinking back on my own college experience
and my own law school experience, as well. And I`m not sure that attending
the classes that I attended necessarily contributed to that --

O`DONNELL: Let me stop you there. What do you think is the
difference between you and your friend, Ed, when you look at the American
government and he sees the architecture of oppression, and you don`t? What
do you think is the difference between the two of you there?

ANDERSON: It`s a good question. I do think that there are some
issues, actually. And I do think that this dialogue is very important.

I think that there has, perhaps because some executive overreach. And
it could maybe be scaled back.

I`m a big advocate for judges and for search warrants and I definitely
think that there needs to be oversight, especially in an area such as this,
in the intelligence world when there are not journalists who necessarily
have access, who can sort of bring things to the light of day. I think
it`s so much more important, perhaps to have -- to make sure that we have
the appropriate amount of oversight.

So, I don`t why it is that I sound different when I talk about it than
he sounds when he talks about it --

O`DONNELL: Well, Mavanee, because there is huge difference between
overreach and oppression. Those are very, very different things, I think
you and I can agree there is government overreach, and there is a lot of it
and surely there must be a great deal of it in the intelligence community.
But there is a big difference between overreach and oppression.

And that big difference, it may be I`m suggesting, it maybe a
difference of the maturity of the frame with which you look at things with,
and then again, it simply may be that Ed Snowden has the level of
information that the rest of us may never have.

But, Mavanee, we`re out of time. I want to thank you very, very much
for joining us tonight. I really appreciate this. I understand how
difficult and awkward it is for you to talk about your friend and your own
experience within your own occupational history and all of this, and I
really appreciate you joining us.

ANDERSON: Thank you very much.

O`DONNELL: Thank you.

Coming up, today of all day, was the long scheduled hearing on the
NSA`s budget and the head of the NSA got quite a grilling -- thanks to Ed

We`ll hear from Howard Dean and Joy Reid on the NSA. That`s coming


O`DONNELL: At the Senate hearing on the NSA today, "BuzzFeed"
reporter Rosie Gray tweeted that Senator Barb is trying hard to keep the
other senators from asking General Alexander anymore about data mining
programs. And then this happened.


SEN. MIKULSKI: I want to respond to a tweet about me from Rosie Gray.
There is no attempt here to muscle, stifle, any senator. So, Rosie, it`s
an open hearing, I look forward to keeping in touch.


O`DONNELL: More on that hearing next with Joy Reid and Howard Dean.



SEN. JON TESTER (D), MONTANA: Why is a contractor have access to
information that we`re spending $13 billion to prevent outsiders from
getting their hands on?


O`DONNELL: That was one of the many uncomfortable questions directed
to the head of the NSA today, in a long scheduled Senate appropriations
Committee hearing about the NSA`s budget, the timing of which could not
have been more unfortunate for General Keith Alexander, director of the

Here was General Alexander`s answer to Senator Tester`s Ed Snowden


ALEXANDER: So that is one of the great concerns we both have in that
in our networks, the system administration of those networks, the IT
infrastructure was outsourced about 14 years ago to move more -- to push
more of our work out to contractors. As a consequence, many in government,
not just us have system administrators who are contractors working and
running our networks.

Now, they don`t have total visibility of the network, but they get key
parts to it. And in this case, this individual was a system administrator
with access to key parts of the network.


O`DONNELL: Senators who never got into much detail in previous NSA
budget hearings were very interested in the details today.


DURBIN: Section 215 can be used to obtain, quote, "any tangible
thing," close quote, that could include -- could include -- medical
records, Internet search records, tax records, credit card records.

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER NSA DIRECTOR: We don`t, I don`t use those so I
am not aware of anything that goes in. That would be outside of NSA.

SEN. MIKE JOHANNS (R), NEBRASKA: Does this extend beyond telephone
records? For example, could you check and see what that person is
Googling? Could you check and see who that person is e-mailing?

ALEXANDER: Once we identify a person of interest then it goes to the
FBI. The FBI will then look at that and say what more do we need to now
look at that individual themselves? So there are issues and things that
they would then look at if passed to them.

JOHANNS: So the answer to the question is yes?

ALEXANDER: Yes, you could, you could get a court order to do that.
So, in either case --

JOHANNS: But would that take a court order?

ALEXANDER: It would, to do any kind of search in these areas on a
U.S. person you have to have a court order.


LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC ANCHOR: And here is General Alexander`s
bottom line defense of all that secrecy. LIP


ALEXANDER: Some of these are still going to be classified and should
be because if we tell the terrorists every way that we`re going to track
them they will get through and Americans will die.


O`DONNELL: Joining me now, Howard Dean, former Vermont governor and
DNC Chairman and Joy Reid, managing editor for "the Grio."

Howard Dean, you were once on your way to the presidency, I don`t know
what happened to stop that. But you may have had a chance to sit in the
oval office with that issue in front of you. If you don`t do this,
Americans will die. There will be generals like Alexander sitting there
telling you that. How should the chief executive balance the issues in
making those kinds of decisions based on those kinds of recommendations?

HOWARD DEAN, FORMER VERMONT GOVERNOR: Well, look, I think there are a
number of lessons to be learned here, leaving aside what Ed Snowden`s
motives were.

First of all, I just got a tweet from a New Hampshire legislator, who
will guard the guards? This country is a great country because people who
govern us govern with our consent. And I think -- as I said last night or
a couple of nights ago, I don`t have a problem with somebody rummaging
through my records if that is what we need to keep America safe. I do have
a problem not knowing that it is going on, because I don`t that`s legal. I
don`t think that is proper and I don`t think it is constitutional.

So, I think all was necessary here for the American people to be aware
that this degree of scrutiny was going to happen. I think the government
would have given approval to that. But what happened was administration
says Congress was briefed. A lot of congressmen out there right now claim
they didn`t know anything about it. We do need protection from the
government and by the government. And I`ll give you an example. So, I am
old enough to remember when J. Edgar Hoover was collecting (INAUDIBLE) on
the civil rights leaders in this country. I`m old enough to remember when
the CIA spied domestically and that had to be banned.

So, it is possible for -- I think this government is doing the best
they can. I think it is possible for governments to overreach. And I
think the inclination of powerful people is to overreach and this is why
this had to be disgust openly. So, it is no may or may not. I`m not going
to classify whether have a fight or not there`s a traitor or not. That`s
for other people to carry on that. But, we need to have that discussion
and we need to figure out how we can balance the need for security and
inspection and the need for freedom, and to prevent government from
overreaching and using this kind of information to oppress people. When
you talk about the architecture of oppression, I think you unfairly jump
down his throat. Because I don`t think he was saying to you the United
States government was oppressive government. But other government that are
oppressive governments start by getting information on their -- and by
spying on their own people. They can only do that with our consent. And
as I have said, I think we would have given our consent, but we were not

O`DONNELL: Well, I do think if you look at the language of exactly
what was said, he does use phrases like architect oppression in a way that
I think he does mean that we are oppressed.

And Joy Reid, can we be oppressed in this country if we don`t feel

that, you know, I have to take a little bit of issue with what Howard Dean
said, with all due respect to governor Dean, because Mr. Snowden talked
about the architect of oppression and government are oppressing us in
China, right? I mean, he also was saying that the United States is
bullying China.

You know, I hate to break it to people, but China also was spying on
our networks. He told the Chinese through the newspaper that we`re spying
on them. Well, you know, no doubt. That is what the NSA does. IT is an
agency created by Harry Truman specifically for the cryptological
intelligence gathering. It is an agency that wiretaps. Remember before
9/11, the intercepts that came through, that said the match begins
tomorrow, they will sort of, you know, they thinks and threats that we
later learned where about 9/11. That was the NSA. That is wt they do.

Number two, the idea that yes, you have to gain the consent of people
before doing these programs. Look, this was a program discovered by James
Wright (hp) in an air lift cloud, "the New York Times" in 2005, and the
Democratic Congress said OK, you can do it, but get warrant. But what is
leaked here? The warrant.

So, I mean, you know, so I think we have to be careful about making
really sort of flip comparisons to co and tell pro. I think that takes a
little bit too far. Now, I think anybody would be uncomfortable with the
idea of the government sitting through reams and reams and reams of general
data; it is just a big document dump of documents that they can later get a
court order to go back through. We can debate whether that is a good idea.
But calling that oppression, that means the companies like Google, Gmail,
facebook, like pretty much they`re all oppressing us.

DEAN: I said that is my point. He didn`t say oppression. He said
the architecture of oppression. And that is exactly -- look, I don`t
depend anything --. The way is saying is, this is exactly what the Chinese
do this to their own people. We don`t want to do with the Chinese. I
don`t mind spying on the Chinese. Sure as hell, they are spying on us.
But, I don`t want to spy on our own people the same way that Chinese spy on
their people.

O`DONNELL: Well, I think if we hear more from Ed Snowden, we`ll get
more clarification from him, I hope. But I think you`re right, Howard
Dean, this is an invaluable debate that he has started and we absolutely
wouldn`t be having it if he had not started in the appropriations hearing
today, it wouldn`t have nothing controversial in it if it were not for Ed

But like so many Washington debates, we are starting it several years
too late. We didn`t have this debate when they were voting on the laws
authorizing all of this. As Joy, you pointed out this weekend on MSNBC,
the long history that was established without debate.

Howard Dean and Joy Reid, thank you for joining us.

REID: Thank you.

DEAN: Thank you.

O`DONNELL: Coming up, yet another episode of Republican guys sitting
around talking about rape. They just cannot help themselves.


O`DONNELL: Crazy broke out in the House of Representatives again
today. Yet another Republican let it be known that pregnancy is not really
one of the things you have to worry about if you get raped. His lunacy did
not go unanswered. That is next.


O`DONNELL: In the spotlight tonight, Republican men just can`t quit
talking about rape.


REP. TRENT FRANKS (R), ARIZONA: Before, when my friends on the left
side of the aisle here tried to make rape and incest a subject because, you
know, the instances of rape in resulting in pregnancy are very low.


O`DONNELL: That was congressman Trent Franks speaking in not so
eloquent support of his bill to banning all the abortion after 20 weeks of
pregnancy, he did not go unanswered.


REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D), CALIFORNIA: Astonishing to hear a phrase
repeated that the incidence of pregnancy from rape is low, that is not, I
mean, there is no scientific basis for that. And the idea that the
Republican men on this committee think they can tell a woman in America
that they have to carry to term the product of a rape is outrageous.


O`DONNELL: Joining me now, Democratic congresswoman from California,
Jackie Speier.

Congresswoman Speier, his bill actually passed through the house
committee today. Will they actually vote on it in the full house and all
go on record for this?

REP. JACKIE SPEIER (D), CALIFORNIA: Absolutely, I think it is yet
another example of the cheap theater that the Republicans love to put in
front of the American people to fundraise amongst certain groups and to
show their credentials to a particular component of the Republican
conservative movement.

O`DONNELL: And this thing that they have about rape and pregnancy, it
feels like some kind of strange twitch or reflex they have. When they hear
these words they have to say these things.

SPEIER: It is almost like they have been programmed. And when the
word rape comes up, they have to say something that more stupid than the
last person that said. And the truth is they lost three elections on the
last cycle on this very issue. And for him to say that somehow rape does
not result into pregnancies is false because in fact, 32,000 women become
pregnant because of a rape every year in this country. And there is no way
that those women should have to take to term that horrible act that took
place as part of their experience in this crime that they endured.

O`DONNELL: Well, they`re always making this point, the Republican
men, to justify their refusal to consider any kind of exception on their
abortion bans, any kind of exception for rape and incest. And so, then
they have to minimize the effects of rape.

SPEIER: They minimize the effects of rape. You know, I always get
frustrated because not one of them has a vagina, and unless you have got
one, and unless you have experienced that kind of just horrendous
experience, how can you possibly speak to it?

And you know, the American college of obstetrician and gynecologists
has spoken out loudly and clearly, they`re the experts, the medical experts
on this issue. And they say that at 20 weeks, a woman can have life-
threatening circumstances, and that this kind of legislation is wrong.

O`DONNELL: Congresswoman Jackie Speier, thanks for joining us once
again tonight. Thank you.

SPEIER: My pleasure.

O`DONNELL: Coming up, Darrell Issa flip flops on the IRS
investigation, which means Darrell Issa is, of course, in tonight`s



the targeting of the president`s political enemies, effectively, and lies
about it during the election year so that it was not discovered until


O`DONNELL: That was the chairman of the house committee on oversight.
It is basically the house committee for investigations, for investigations
they feel like doing at any time. Darrell Issa is the investigation
chairman of the House of investigations. And there he was on May 14th,
announcing his conclusion about what happened at the IRS before conducting
one minute of investigation. He knew everything he needed to know. This
was targeting of the president`s political enemies. That is what he said,
period. Case closed. He knew that before a single minute of hearings.

Then Darrell Issa had his hearings and they were very disappointing
for Darrell Issa, because his conclusion about the case, the conclusion he
reached before hearing a word of testimony was not supported by that
testimony. And so, then Darrell Issa had his staff start conducting
private interviews with IRS workers in the Cincinnati office where the
applications for tax-exempt status were handled.

Issa could have called those workers as public witnesses in a
committee hearing on TV for everyone to see. But he was obviously by that
time afraid that their testimony would not support the conclusions he had
already publicly reached.

So Republican and Democrat, committee staff members conducted those
interviews in private and produced the transcripts of those interviews.
Then, Darrell Issa tried to select phrases from those transcripts that he
could then flash publicly and make them sound like they supported his
earlier conclusions. But that didn`t work so well for him.


critics say that Republicans and you in particular, sort of cherry-pick
information that go to your foregone conclusion. And so, what worries us
to kind of quit this kind of stuff out, can you not put the whole
transcript up?

ISSA: The whole transcript will be put up.


O`DONNELL: The whole transcript will be put up? OK, good, that was
on June 2nd. By the way, he did say a little bit more in that answer than
just the transcript will be put out.


ISSA: The whole transcript will be put up. We understand these are
in realtime and the administration is still, their paid liar, their


O`DONNELL: Yes, that was the answer in which Darrell Issa called Jay
Carney, a paid liar, the answer in which Darrell Issa promised the whole
transcript would be put out. And then Darrell Issa refused to put out the
whole transcript which means if anyone in Washington is going to be calling
someone a liar, Darrell Issa really shouldn`t be that guy because there is
a very good chance he will lie while calling somebody a liar.

Here is what the chat Democrats on Darrell Issa`s committee said about
getting the transcripts out.


REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D), MARYLAND: I said by Friday, if the chairman
doesn`t want to release them like he promised, like he promised, what we
will do is e will do the redact them and then submit them to the public and
media so that you all can make your own judgment. Then, nothing in those
transcripts that I`m afraid of.


O`DONNELL: Along with threatening to put out the transcripts himself,
Congressman Cummings has revealed key elements of what is in the
transcripts. He has revealed the man in charge, the IRS manager who
supervised the team evaluating tax-exempt status, describes himself as
quote "a conservative Republican, with 21 years of experience at the IRS.

The transcripts reveal exactly who was the very first person to focus
review attention on a tea party application, application one, in this case.
And it was indeed a low level screener working for that conservative
Republican manager. And when that screener told his conservative
Republican manager about that application, the conservative Republican
manager agreed that it should be reviewed. The transcript quotes the
manager saying, "we would need to know how frequently or of the total
activities, 100 percent of the activities, what portion of those total
activities would you be dedicating to political activities, and in this
particular case it was not addressed."

The conservative Republican manager then instructed his team to
identify similar cases, and so there you have it. Mystery solved. But
now, Darrell Issa doesn`t think the mystery is solved, even though he did
announce his conclusion about the case a month ago before he heard a word
of testimony.

Yesterday, Darrell Issa wrote a very angry letter to Elijah Cummings
saying quote "there is still much that we do not know about how and why
certain applications for tax exempt status weren`t delayed or received
heightened scrutiny from the IRS."

But of course none of them were actually denied. But there is Darrell
Issa, the guy who knew everything before he heard a word of testimony
before the committee saying there is much we do not know. And so Darrell
Issa has finally said something that is true.

Yes, Darrell Issa, there is much that you do not know.


O`DONNELL: If you missed it at the beginning of tonight`s show, you
can see my exclusive interview with Ed Snowden`s friend, Mavanee (ph)
Anderson, on our Web site. It went a little long for so that`s tonight`s
"Last Word."

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.>