>> i mark halperin. >> i'm john heilemann. and with all the respect, i would not have voted for last season's winner either. >> in our washington lineup tonight -- jeb bush's running question and sony executive's lack of discretion. but first something in a congressional package -- what makes this trillion dollar spending bill different from all other trillion dollar spending

bills? the answer is most interesting conflict is not between democrats and republicans, it's between democrats and the white house. president obama and vice president biden have been calling everyone to vote for the so-called cromnibus. >> if we don't finish today, we will be here until christmas. we know how this works. let me tell you something else. there's not one of you in this room that doesn't understand this is exactly the way i don't want to do business. i want to 12 appropriations bills will stop i want to do them one at a time and i want to do them before october 1, but when the senate does nothing they put us in this box and here we are. >> it provides the kind of certainty that is important to our economy. that is among the reasons why the president supports the passage of this compromise proposal and would sign it if it arrives on his desk. >> this is a moral hazard. we are being asked to vote for a moral hazard.

i'm enormously disappointed the white house feels the only way they can get a bill is to go along with this and that's the only reason i think they would say they would sign such a bill that would weaken a critical component of financial system reform. >> mark, house and credit caucus meeting at 5:30 p.m. the whole thing could be figured out, but my question to you at this minute is whether president obama's endorsement of this bill today has backfired? >> i think so far it did. there was a procedural vote that barely passed with no democratic support. when the president endorses something, it locks in a lot of republicans who were not for it. you have elizabeth lauren and -- warren and nancy pelosi thing they don't like it. the president now is whipping the vote for john boehner because john boehner needs some unspecified number of unspecified votes and the

president is trying to convince democrats to go against nancy pelosi. they would have maybe been better off the more ambiguous. >> i'm not sure john boehner lost any votes because of this. the votes he lost or unlikely to vote for this thing anyway. on the merits, whatever you think of the president's role, i think nancy pelosi has a strong case. some of the things on this bill, particularly the gutting of dodd-frank, the democrats are right though -- both as a matter of strategy and substance. >> it appears to me both sides went in today thinking boehner was going to find the votes to do it. under normal circumstances, a speaker with a speaker with the bigger majority coming and could have found the votes but the president not have moved any house republicans from yes to knowno, but i think he froze the

pool of available house republicans who might have been convinced to have their twisted by the speaker to vote for it. now the whole thing is up in the air. they got to a the government is going to shut down and federal agencies are being warned maybe there will be a shutdown. >> though you think the game is the president is not going to make perfect the enemy of the good. nancy pelosi might be able to get these provisions stripped out in the next week. this letter -- i forget who now -- sherrod brown on the banking stuff, they might be able to fix this bill and get a better bill . >> house republicans support would collapse and they would be starting from scratch will stop we will have more with all of this on -- from white house press secretary joshua ernest. the overall effectiveness of torture -- or enhanced terry nation -- enhanced interrogation techniques is a noble. >> there was useful, valuable intelligence obtained from individuals who had done at some

point subjected to eit. whether that could be obtained without that is unknowable. >> so brennan basically read this statement that the cia put out. does this press conference change anything? >> i don't think it changes anything. one of the most amazing thing was senator feinstein or her office tweeted going to point by point, rebutting him saying we have proof here that the torture did not lead to osama bin laden -- i think the debate remains as hot as it was before this. this did not cool it out at all. >> the next move is there is pressure within the pro reports caucus. feinstein and outside groups saying the cia and pro cia counter offensive to the report has been very strong and overwhelming and has moved to

there a people saying that feinstein needs to go out and do a couple of interviews. we wanted them to come out and defend the report. you don't see many democrats, we have tried to book them on the show. there is a real effort to say we need to push back. >> and you need to read the full report. i hate to go back to twitter but read the full report. >> if winning in washington requires doing people to read a report, good luck. >> but the argument is that the report is flawed, if you actually look at the report, i agree -- it's hard to get people to read 6700 pages. the most striking thing is that you are in the realm of epistemology, you have john brennan who back in 2013 said he did not know whether the techniques had worked. now he's saying it is unknowable. that's a weird place to be. >> and the fact is it is not unknowable. you can look at the real world

cases. which is what the report reports to do. we have a major exclusive story about jeb bush's exclusive business dealings. you can read it now on bloombergpolitics.com. it includes some thing called bhb global aviation that allows overseas investors to avoid paying american taxes. jeb bush is also the chairman of two other multimillion dollar funds. here's the key line from the story -- "jeb bush's flurry avengers does not suggest anyone preparing to run for president." the story also suggests jeb bush might have a mitt romney problem because of all the overseas ties he has through these investment vehicles. a lot of supporters are saying he does not have a mitt romney problem but a lot of those people thought mitt romney did not have a mitt romney problem. does this story, a major exclusive, show the dimensions of jeb bush's experience and what does it say about his chances in 2016?

>> there is a technical thing with some of these investment vehicles whether he is a key man, meaning that he can walk away from this, and he is not apparently designating himself a key man, so he could walk away from them. some investors would be upset, thinking they had invested in a jeb bush vehicle. we both cover 2012 carefully and went through a lot of stuff related to debate and capital. sometimes there was real stuff there and sometimes there was phony stuff that now there are all of these questions. who are all of these investors? you remember al gore at the buddhist temple. it is a massive treasure trove to dig into. republicans and democrats alike, if he became the nominee. >> regardless of whether he has a mitt romney problem, the story the other day in the "washington post" says he wants to make money and is going to go on board and give paid speeches.

all of these people, the same for hillary clinton the same for my cockapoo -- -- the same for mike huckabee -- you want to run for president -- the caucuses are about year away. stop trying to get rich. if you want to be president, stop trying to get rich. we saw with mitt romney, you could have the best intentions -- whatever. >> the invasive north korean hack of sony has finally reached the beltway. sony executive amy pascal e-mailed a producer, scott rudin, about what she should ask the president. she fired back with "the butler and "-- this is funny and embarrassing but points to a larger thing. we have been talking a lot about racial relations in the wake of ferguson and the new york grand

jury results, but it's amazing how even in those liberal parts of our society the degree to which there are these borderline racist and insensitive stereotypical tropes that creep into the private communications of people who should know better. there are a lot of issues route -- around race in this country and you can find them in a lot of different places, even some that would surprise you. >> two young and exceedingly powerful members of the obama administration will join us. josh earnest will be here. we will be right back. ♪

>> earlier today, we visited the foggiest bottom of the state department. we spoke with our most visible fox. we started the conversation asking about the safety of u.s. personnel in embassies around the world after the release of the senate intel report on the cia. >> thank you for joining us. i want to ask about a lot of things.

>> great. perfect. >> critics of the release of the senate intelligence reports say it will threaten american lives around the world. does the fact that you all have had interactions with embassies about security meetings, do you share that concern? >> of course, protecting our men and women who serve overseas is one of our biggest priorities. we have talked to our chief of mission on the ground about what we need to do to prepare for it. people in the united states have strong emotions about this. so right now we have been preparing and we have taken some precautions at certain embassies but we have not received any actionable intelligence or threats against embassies and that's a good sign. we are going to take it day by day, but that is certainly a factor. >> so you share the concern of those who say -- not that you oppose the release of the report, but you share the concerns who say it could have an impact in a negative way in terms of threats or actual violence? >> you always have two ways

these different pieces and we certainly have to prepare for the reaction. we have been doing that for months now. >> has any foreign countries contacted the department to express concern about the release of the report? >> since the report has come out, have you heard from foreign government to have said this is a problem? >> we have done a lot of those calls since the report can out proactively because we knew governments would be interested and concerned. we have heard back from countries -- it has been a back and forth. >> when secretary kerry made the phone call to senator feinstein -- it's still a little unclear to me. we know that he called. >> yes. >> why did he call and what did he hope to get out of the call? >> they have been friends for 20 years. they've known each other for a long time. we knew the report was about to be released. he was the guy the senate passed, not unanimously, but

with a great majority -- >> so far, this answer is what we call in the senate as a filibuster. >> well, listen, i am getting to my next he felt it was part of point. his job to reach out to former colleagues and where he thinks issues should be raised. >> was he calling to ask for a delay? >> he wanted to talk about the timing -- here is what i'm hearing and seeing around the world. >> he would have preferred for it to be later? >> i think he wanted to raise the issue and have a discussion about it but he did not protest the release. he just had a conversation with a former colleague. >> what are the highlights of american diplomacy in 2014? >> i think a couple of things if you look at this year -- there's a new unity government in afghanistan, that took a lot of blood, sweat and tears to get there. they are moving forward. one year ago, iraq was barreling toward a very bad situation as

it relates to isil and a divided government. now we have leadership trying to work in a more cohesive way. in iran, we are chugging along on the agreements there. it is hard work, but it is still in play. we still feel it can be done. >> i think some americans would look at that list and say afghanistan, iraq, and iran and if those are your leads on success, it has not been a great year. maybe you cap worst things from happening -- >> i would disagree with that. part of the job from any secretary of state for any administration is to deal with crises. there are issues like climate change and that they proactive issue for us and we have made big progress will stop we have a climate deal with china and there are ongoing negotiations. we are trying to get countries to commit to targets and we have made a lot of progress on that issue. >> let's stick with the issue for a moment. it seems to me a position secretary kerry deserves a lot of credit for and put a lot of time into -- talk about how in

terms of his point of view in terms of travel, how did he put that deal together? >> i would say that when i first talked to him about coming to the state department, this is one of the first issues he raised. he cares very deeply about it. he met his wife in rio. he has been working on this issue with the chinese specifically putting together that deal during every meeting. just a couple of months ago, he hosted the chinese in boston and had a dinner at his house and wanted to have some time to take their ties off and talk about these tough issues. i think that was a turning point. >> did the chinese actually take their ties off? >> they did. >> we ask this question a lot -- it seems strange to us that there seems to have been so little done to build support around that deal and the business community and other kinds of allies that might have

come out when the deal was announced, they ended up getting a lot of criticism -- do you have any sense of why that is? >> you know, that is a good question. in our view, that's not the end, it's the beginning. it's a marking point leading up to the negotiations in paris next year. it is sending a message to the world that two of the biggest emitters, china and the united states, are going to put strong targets in place. >> jen, thank you. >> thank you. >> we will be right back. ♪

>> josh earnest came on our show a couple of months ago and he apparently thinks he did a good job because he wanted to come back again. here he is, mr. white house press secretary welcome back. , it is an interesting night for you to be here.

but you are not just talking about the christmas party? >> we're going to talk about strategy and tactics. nancy pelosi is very upset about this provision in the bill that is currently before them that would get rid of a key provision of dodd-frank. the president was a big supporter of dodd-frank, it was one of the main things he accomplished in his first term. how can the president live with an outcome that would kick out one of the key struts that uphold the reform of wall street? >> this is a provision that the president does not support either. when the republicans try to move this last year, he promised to veto it last year. the reason we can support this bill is because it does do good things for wall street reform. double-digit increases for the cftc and ftc, two important regulatory agencies. there are no riders that would gut the agencies. this is something the president worked with elizabeth warren to

create, this gives consumers a voice. >> presumably the president was going to veto it before because he thought it would do great damage to dodd-frank. it still would do great damage to dodd-frank -- >> i think that is overstating it a little bit. >> why did he issue the veto threat? >> this would water down some of the abilities of the regulatory agencies to keep wall street in check and that's why we don't oppose it -- we don't support it. this doesn't go to the basic architecture we have in place to prevent another meltdown like we saw in 2008. this is a provision we don't support, but we don't have the same sort of assessment that this is a doomsday provision. the fact is there are a lot of other good things included in the bill that frankly nobody would have addicted we would get double-digit increases for two regulatory agencies with a republican majority in the house. but yet, that is what we were

able to get in this agreement. that is what makes this a compromise proposal. >> they are engaged in a joint operation with the speaker of the house? >> there are good reasons for republicans and democrats to support this -- >> no member of the house leadership is trying to convince them right? >> if we do have a vote, we will see members of the house democratic committee supported. they are going to vote their conscience, and that is what they should do. >> you think members of the leadership will go against it -- certainly you don't think nancy pelosi -- >> we believe that there are good reasons the democrats -- >> it is a strange situation because nancy pelosi is doing nothing to help her president when this vote -- when this vote.

>> she said she's disappointed in the position of president has taken. the president and leader pelosi have a tremendous relationship -- >> a complicated relationship really. >> if you look at the track record, wall street reform, the affordable care act, don't ask, don't tell, but -- >> is this foreshadowing of what next year is going to be like or is he more likely to be allied with nancy pelosi? >> i think the president is always going to look for an opportunity where he can be on the same team as nancy pelosi. >> he failed in this case. >> nancy pelosi has succeeded in politics and in the leadership of the house democratic caucus because she is somebody who has strong views. she's not going to sit around and let her allow people to tell her what to do. >> one more question. people are talking about you all

needing to get 40 or more democrats, is that the number that you need? >> i'm no expert in counting these votes. >> what are people in the building saying? >> there are with counts on both sides. we are casting a wide net and encouraging as many democrats as possible to take a close look at what is included in this legislation because there's a lot in there to like. >> it has been a weird week with this torture report. i don't understand how the president can be in favor of the report and have his cia leader attacking the committee. i don't get that, exactly, and how that is not an act of insubordination on the part of the cia director. >> the cia director is supposed to represent the interests of his agency. >> isn't he supposed to also be the same side of the president as he is his boss? >> this is a policy john brennan has imposed in his agency. >> there's no reason force -- no reason for brennan to be attacking the committee. he could be quiet right now, right?

they are making vocally opposite arguments -- >> there has been tension over the course of multiple directors. it has not just been director brennan. the fact of the matter is as we are looking to declassify this report, the white house stepped in to facilitate an agreement between both sides. we got a declassified report where 93% of the report about a classified program was released without redaction. >> super quick question, we are almost out of time. any chance the president would be for a national commission? he once rejected a commission until his report was done. >> i think we are having this debate in a pretty robust way and i think the president thinks that is good for the country. >> no actual commission? >> i don't think that is something we are going to support at this moment. this debate is important. >> we will be right back with a very special advent calendar

's, surprise josh, you are awesome. ♪

>> welcome back to the white house north lawn and today it's the advent calendar -- camels at the capital. no idea why they were there. thank for watching.

>> he made his name as a top tech analysts on wall street. then, bill gurley made his way to the promised land of silicon valley. joining benchmark capital in 1999. almost right away, the bubble burst. gurley's stock went down and up and down again. and then he was associated with a number of famous names. twitter.