her husband in 1997 though her boyfriend is the one who actually stabbed him to death. there is no new date as yet that is scheduled for her execution. but no clemency granted either. we'll keep you posted on that. thanks for watching, everyone. my colleague wolf starts right now. hello. i'm wolf blitzer. it's 1:00 p.m. here in washington. 6:00 p.m. in london. 8:00 p.m. in jerusalem. 9:00 p.m. in moscow. wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us. up first, a potential nuclear nightmare. that's what the israeli prime minister says could happen if a proposed nuclear deal with iran goes forward. this was the prime minister benjamin netanyahu's much-anticipated and controversial speech before a joint meeting of the united states congress. he warned that the deal in the works right now will in his words pave the way for a nuclear iran instead of preventing one.

>> this deal won't change iran for the better. it will only change the middle east for the worse. a deal that's supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet. this deal won't be a farewell to arms, it would be a fairwell torewell to arms control. >> the prime minister called the current plan being negotiated a very bad deal. and he warned about the dangers of islamic militants getting access to nuclear weapons. >> the greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant islam with nuclear weapons. to defeat isis and let iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle but lose the war. we can't let that happen. [ applause ]

but that, my friends is exactly what could happen if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by iran. >> we're harnessing all of our global resources to cover this story as only cnn can do. from here in washington to jerusalem, from the nuclear talks in switzerland to the iranian capital, our correspondents are standing by to bring you all the latest details, all of the developments. let's take a closer look at the prime minister's speech right now. our global affairs correspondent elise labott is joining me here in washington. listen to what the prime minister said about the alternatives to this current plan that's in the works. >> the greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant islam with nuclear weapons. to defeat isis and let iran get nuclear weapons would be to win

the battle but lose the war. we can't let that happen. >> so the criticism coming in as you know from the white house, elsewhere is that bold words, tough words by the prime minister of israel but no specifics, no real alternative to what's going on. >> that's right. just a few minutes after the speech i got an e-mail from very top administration officials calling this a, quote, very weak deal because the prime minister didn't offer a coherent alternative. the criticism of the administration by the prime minister is that he talks tough but without a deal would be the greatest way for iran to get the bomb that he is afraid of because without a deal, iran would be able to continue its nuclear program. it would go on unabated. you would not have those kinds of inspections and restrictions currently in place and would be in place for a long time to come. >> going into the speech as you well know, the administration the white house were concerned he was going to release sensitive, classified information as part of this

speech. he didn't do that. >> he didn't do that. his aides advertised some specifics of the deal. he really gave a very broad characterization. but i think when he was very effective, in this mixture of intelligence and emotion and painting this picture of not only the nature of the regime, talking about these tentacles of terror that iran has throughout the region the danger of them getting a nuclear weapon in the region but also why this deal would be a way for iran to go quickly to the bomb in less than a year if it were to violate the deal or once it expired and also talked the tinderbox that would be inside the middle east. the problem is he has no alternative, he's talking about a deal he wants greater restrictions for some time to come. he doesn't want those restrictions lifted until iran changes its behavior in the region. he wants to keep sanctions in place. that deal does not exist. then you go back to the problem that what do you do if there's no deal?

and the prime minister said israel will not stand alone. it will not stand by and watch iran get a nuclear weapon. the question is would they use military action to go after iran? and it doesn't seem likely they could do that at this point without the united states. and that's what they were afraid of that they would be in this position forced to defend themselves by themselves. >> i know you're getting more reaction. i'll have you stand by. i want to go to the white house right now. officials there very very critical of the prime minister of israel and his speech. they released a statement just a little while ago. our senior white house correspondent, jim acosta is getting reaction. how furious are they over there, jim? >> reporter: they're furious with bibi netanyahu, no question about i. there is strong pushback from this administration to the prime minister's speech. and they really are offering up a rebuttal almost point by point throughout this speech they're saying without this deal that they're trying to reach with the iranians that tehran would be really on the path to developing a nuclear weapon.

they also say that even military action would only curtail their program for a fraction of the time that this deal would offer. they're saying that that is another point that is in their favor. another thing that they're saying is that just because they're talking to the iranians doesn't mean that they're trying to normalize relations with the regime in tehran and saying that they don't trust the iranians. if this deal is put into place, there will be a monitoring regime that is put in place to make sure the iranians are living up to their end of the bargain. but if you just look at the personal nature of this white house response to the prime minister's speech it is stark, it is vivid and it can't be mistaken. i want to put this up on screen. they're basically asking prime minister netanyahu, where is your plan? it says quote, we are pursuing a deal that verifiably prevents iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. where is the alternative? simply demanding that iran completely capitulate is not a

plan plan. potentially, there's a meeting with the defense secretary in about half an hour. cameras will be going in. we're not sure whether or not the president will talk about it. but josh earnest will be peppered with questions about the prime minister's speech. that happens at 2:00. >> if the president's relationship with the prime minister was bad going into this speech, it's poisonous right now. jim, stand by. we'll hear what the president has to say in his meeting with the new defense secretary, ash carter. let's go to jerusalem, kate bolduan is on the scene for us. you have a special guest, you're getting reaction from some of the prime minister's supporters. >> reporter: absolutely. and some of the prime minister's critics. right after the prime minister finished his speech his main opponent took to the microphone and began giving if you want to call it a response. in the response just really quickly, he said after the applause, netanyahu remains

alone. israel remains isolated and the negotiations with iran will continue. he accused netanyahu of sabotaging the relationship with the united states. that of course is the key opponent to benjamin netanyahus in upcoming election. but with me now, former deputy minister of defense, current member of the israeli parliament. i know you have a very different view in the prime minister's speech before congress. >> kate prime minister netanyahu was sounding the alarm for the survival of our country. we are worried. and i'm very proud of our prime minister who came and said exactly what we feel. it is a bad deal. we prefer to wait not to sign this deal because the p5 plus 1, we want to stop iran for the long run. we cannot allow them to become nuclear. you cannot monitor them. >> reporter: this came out -- and we talked about this earlier, i want to get your

take. the administration immediately after the prime minister spoke said that there is literally not one new idea not one single concrete alternative, it's all rhetoric, no action. then what did the prime minister gain in this speech? >> well first of all, i see that in your politics you have officials. if somebody has something to say, he should come publicly and say what he thinks about our speech. the prime minister flew in the middle of the campaign and said exactly what we feel here in israel. but there is an alternative. we should continue with the sanctions. we should apply more pressure. this is a crucial moment. you don't sign the deal today. you put more pressure on iran. then you get them to sign a better deal for us. >> reporter: you brought up that he flew in the middle of the campaign. that's one of the biggest criticisms that i'm hearing from israelis here that are critical of the prime minister as well as you're hearing that concern over in the united states. that this was all about politics. was this all about the campaign? >> the date it was set, march

24th by the p5 plus 1, i don't know -- >> reporter: couldn't he have made this speech two weeks earlier? the negotiations in geneva -- the interim deal was signed in 2013. this speech could have come much earlier. >> we care about the politics. but the ayatollahs don't care about the elections in israel or in the u.s. they care about building the bomb. and i think that prime minister pushing the issue of iran for many years and he's worried about this issue because in two weeks, we will have a new government in israel. but iran will continue to build its nuclear containment. >> and in two weeks, we'll find out what impact if any that this speech the prime minister, gave before congress will have. danny, thank you so much. wolf back to you. >> one quick question, kate. there's a rule in israel a law that two weeks before an election you can't do campaigning live on television. so there's this five-minute delay. i understand when the opposition the main challenger

to the prime minister the labor party leader was speaking they took part of his rebuttal speech and they didn't allow it to go off to the israeli public. what happened? >> reporter: this spaekt of this is fascinating to me. i comes from strict rules, as you and i were discussing in election law. they had decided, a judge, that netanyahu's speech needed to be on five-minute delay for all networks and radio that were going to be broadcasting it in order to try to avoid letting it become a political campaign propaganda speech. on the flip side the interesting part about this when hertzog began making his speech the stations decided it was becoming too political and they pulled his speech, wolf. >> interesting stuff. the politics in israel. we'll see what happens two weeks from today when the elections take place. between 50 and 60 democrats here in washington members of the house and senate chose not to attend the speech by the visiting prime minister. one who did attend is congressman adam schiff of california, ranking member of the house intelligence committee.

congressman, i know you're privy to all the sensitive information. what did you think of the prime minister's speech? >> i think the prime minister laid out fairly well the concerns that many israelis have about what they've heard about the deal. the challenge, and this has been highlighted by the white house response is what's the alternative to this proposal? and there i do agree with the criticism that we didn't hear a lot of what happens next if this thing falls through. and what i think happens next is iran begins to spin up its centrifuges again, it starts to enrich to 20%, maybe beyond 20%. we get much closer than a one-year breakout. and then the question is where's israel's red line and where's ours? and i'm not sure there's enough time there for what the prime minister in part laid out. and that is that iran then comes back to the table for more negotiations. so that's really the dilemma that we're going to face if there is any kind of an agreement. >> have you seen the u.s./israeli relationship in public as poisonous as it appears to be right now, this

personal relationship has really gotten a whole lot worse between the prime minister of israel and the president of the united states. >> i certainly haven't. and this is a grave concern, i think, to all of us here on the hill and both sides of the aisle because the relationship has to be strong. and ironically the prime minister really needs the president, whether there's a deal and maybe even more so if there isn't because if there is no deal and iran begins to enrich again and israel makes the decision it needs to embark on military action, they're going to want the support of this president. so it's very dangerous, i think, to have allowed the relationship to get to this point. >> thanks very much, congressman adam schiff. we'll continue to stay in touch with you. we'll have much more coverage of the prime minister's historic and very controversial speech before the united states congress. that's coming up including a fact check of the comments he made about iran's nuclear capabilities. and later, hillary clinton apparently breaking the rules, using her personal e-mail

account for every single e-mail she sent during her four years as secretary of state. will this come back to bite the likely 2016 democratic presidential candidate? sweet mother of softness... charmin!!! take a closer look at charmin ultra soft and you'll love what you see. not only can you use less, but you can actually see the softness in our comfort cushions. we all go. why not enjoy the go with charmin ultra soft?

you total your brand new car. nobody's hurt,but there will still be pain. it comes when your insurance company says they'll only pay three-quarters of what it takes to replace it. what are you supposed to do, drive three-quarters of a car? now if you had a liberty mutual new car replacement, you'd get your whole car back. i guess they don't want you driving around on three wheels. smart. new car replacement is just one of the features that come standard with a base liberty mutual policy. and for drivers with accident forgivness,rates won't go up due to your first accident. learn more by calling switch to liberty mutual and you can save up to $423. for a free quote today,call liberty mutual insurance at see car insurance in a whole new

light. liberty mutual insurance. prime minister benjamin netanyahu made his remarks before a joint meeting in the united states congress. but it could be argued that his remarks were also aimed at negotiators in switzerland trying to secure a long-term agreement with iran an its nuclear program. that includes the secretary of state john kerry. only three weeks remain to strike that framework of a deal in switzerland. our chief national security correspondent jim sciutto is joining us. he's covering the talks in

montreuxmono montreaux. what's been the latest from there? >> reporter: no reaction, wolf. the reason is since before the speech started to know a good 2 1/2 hours, those negotiators led by secretary of state john kerry, and the iranian foreign minister, javad zarif, their fifth meeting in the last 24 hours. gives you an indication of what they're focused on, still working towards a deal. i did speak to the iranian foreign minister earlier, he said that netanyahu's attention, in his view is to try to create tension and conflict here. the principal concern from secretary of state john kerry had been that the israeli prime minister would reveal some of the secret details of where the negotiation stands. that did not happen. but, of course the speech did show overall a fundamental disagreement between the president and the israeli prime minister between the u.s. and israel on the very idea of the talks.

>> the prime minister said this is a bad deal. the white house said yesterday, the president in that interview with reuters, said maybe the chances were about 50/50 at best that there could be a deal. you think that's changed as a result of what we heard from netanyahu today? >> reporter: the 50/50 number has been an administration talking point for months less handicapping and more to deliver the message that these talks may get through, they may reach an agreement but they may not. when you look at the outstanding issues and you look at the time line a little over three weeks to the deadline for a framework agreement, there are major framework issues where the two sides are very apart on sanctions. iran wants them lifted immediately. the u.s. wants to parcel that out over time to make sure iran complies. you heard the iaea saying yesterday that iran still after more than a year and a half of negotiations have not fessed up

on past weapons investigations. the number of centrifuges, the type of centrifuges, what kiptype of r & d iran can do. all those things shows you why the administration making clear these talks may very well not come to an agreement. >> jim sciutto in montreaux outside of geneva covering these talks for us. cnn is the only network with a correspondent in iran at the moment. let's go to fred pleitgen what are you hearing from the people there? i suspect they weren't taping that speech live on iranian state television. but i assume people have heard about it already. >> reporter: they certainly have heard about it, wolf. there have been some pretty vicious reactions so far already on iranian tv but also from iranians that we have been speaking to as well.

they didn't take the speech live as netanyahu was giving it. but there is video of the speech that's running and there was a headline on iranian tv that called it a speech of iranophobia. in commentary on iranian tv after the speech they said the speech was a humiliation for barack obama. they also kept making the point that they believe that this speech would drive a wedge between the u.s. and israel and alienate a lot of the other western allies that israel has. that was one of the main points that they were making. i was afterwards able to speak to a political analyst who's very close to the government here in tehran. and he accused netanyahu of lying. he said that netanyahu was contradicting his own intelligence. remember there was those cables that were leaked just a couple of days ago that seems to suggest something like that that perhaps netanyahu had been at odds with his own intelligence services. that's certainly something that the iranians were building big on. but one of the main points taken up here was the points that the

prime minister made where he said that he believed that iran needed the deal more than the west does and more than the united states does. that's certainly something with the iranian leadership have tried to dispel that notion on various occasions. the supreme leader has said he believes a bad deal for iran would be worse than no deal and iran would carry on and would muddle through if indeed the sanctions remained in place and there was no agreement. >> fred pleitgen in tehran we'll stay in close touch with you as well. he's reporting what the reaction is over there. coming up we'll get more reaction to the prime minister's speech at the united states congress including the prime minister's chief press secretary, mark rega he's here in washington. we'll get his reaction as well.

[ male announcer ] at northrop grumman, we've always been at the forefront of advanced electronics. providing technology to get more detail... ♪ ♪ detect hidden threats... ♪ ♪ see the whole picture... ♪ ♪ process critical information and put it in the hands of our defenders. reaching constantly evolving threats before they reach us. that's the value of performance. northrop grumman.

test test test test

in our house, we do just about everything online. and our old internet just wasn't cutting it. so i switched us from u-verse to xfinity. they have the fastest, most reliable internet. which is perfect for me, because i think everything should just work. works? works. works! works? works. works.

welcome back. we're continuing our coverage of the israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu's controversial speech today before a joint meeting of the united states congress. let's get some more reaction. joining us the former speaker of the house of representatives newt gingrich. you were there, mr. speaker, up on capitol hill. we know that he was extremely well-received by the people who were there in the house of representatives. but you also know that at the white house, they're furious right now that the prime minister is questioning their commitment to israel's security. >> well i think it's very ironic the president's overreaction made this a much much bigger speech. if the president just relaxed, had coffee with netanyahu, this would have been a normal foreign

visitor speech. but by reacting for the last two weeks in the frenzy that they've been in they guaranteed that this would be a speech noticed around the world. and it's a pretty straightforward argument. innocent yow who's worried about the very survival of his country is not prepared to take risks. obama who has a gigantic country thousands of miles away is more prepared to take risks. that's a straightforward, legitimate argument and one which i think netanyahu is going to win. and i think the reaction to the speech today shows you there's going to be a very large bipartisan majority opposed to any kind of a bad deal with iran. >> because the accusation against him is that he did this largely -- or at least in part for domestic political reasons. he's facing a stiff challenge, the elections in israel two weeks from today. what would have been the big deal if he would have waited at least until after the elections so he wouldn't be accused of doing this for domestic partisan reasons? >> there's a grave danger from

his perspective that the united states that the obama administration, will reach an agreement with the iranians. there was a deadline in late march. and i think that netanyahu was determined to draw a line in the sand before the deadline and to indicate to the american president the limits to any kind of agreement he could get away with. and i think he was very clear on the speech today that there are very strict limits beyond which it would be a bad deal. and i think you saw in the congressional reaction by both democrats and republicans that there's a pretty big bipartisan majority that is going to vigorously oppose any kind of a bad deal. >> if there's no deal the administration points out, the president of the united states himself, that there's nothing stopping iran from going ahead and enriching as much uranium as they want and going ahead with some sort of nuclear weapon. the only reason they're not doing that now is because of the pressure -- because of all those negotiations with members of the

u.n. security council. >> well i think first of all if there's no deal the congress will pass dramatically stiffer sanctions and combined with the drop in the price of oil which is costing the iranian dictatorship a great deal of money, the additional layer of sanctions will cause even more pain in the iranian economy and further weaken the government. so it's not a question of them having an automatic free hand. i think it's also clear -- and even president obama said we're not going to tolerate the iranians getting a nuclear weapon. the question i ask the president is, what does that mean? is he prepared to use military force? is he prepared to use covert action? but what does "not tolerate" mean which is something he himself has said? >> they've often said if there's no deal and iran is moving forward, the united states will not allow iran to have a nuclear weapon all options, he says would be on the table, presumably referring to the military option as well. newt gingrich thanks very much for joining us. in his address to the united

states congress the israeli prime minister primarily focused his speech on a proposed deal on the table between iran and what are called the p5 plus 1, the five permanent members of the unsecurity council plus germany. the prime minister made a few allegations about iran's nuclear programs. let's check the facts. tom foreman is joining us together with david albright a former u.n. nuclear weapons inspector. tom, break it all down for us. >> wolf one of the chief complaints of the prime minister is just that that this proposal really does not dismantle the nuclear capability for iran. listen. >> not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. thousands more would be temporarily disconnected but not destroyed. because iran's nuclear program would be left largely intact iran's breakout time would be

very short, about a year by u.s. assessment even shorter by israel's. >> so there you have the basic claim that they're making iran's nuclear program remains largely intact. let's bring in the map. david, we'll talk about this. the sites scattered across iran right now, about 19,000 different centrifuges at work out there. you can see they've had tours in past years with ahmadinejad when he was there. here's an aerial view of the same thing. what about this claim, this idea that basically this will not be dismantled under this deal? what happens at natanz? >> the excess centrifuges will be made inoperative and very hard to restart. >> what does that mean? >> it means it will take them months to get going again. the pipes would be disconnected certainly turned off. in the negotiations you could also push to have some of the

vital equipment actually destroyed. that could still be at issue. but the bottom line is it's going to take iran a long time to restart those centrifuges. >> so there's still negotiations going on on that. some facilities would be destroyed effectively? >> well the u.s. position is that the deeply buryied site at issue because it's hard to destroy militarily that would be shut down and not involved in uranium enrichment anymore. >> if you look at these centrifuges and you think about how they produce material when we talk about breakout time how long does it take to get enough to make a bomb? the u.s. said as recently as yesterday, two to three months before they could make a bomb from this material. and iran says more like a year year and a half. who's right? >> i think the u.s. estimates are the better of those three. >> at this moment? >> at this moment.

they've certainly invested a lot of resources to understand this process better. they're using a great deal of intelligence. i think their estimates are the better one. >> right now, if nothing changes, two to three months iran could say, we have the material for a bomb. >> that's right. >> if they went headlong in that direction. and under this deal they're trying to push it back to more like a year. >> yeah. >> how do you deal with the question of secrecy? that's one of the big questions for everyone. >> the goal is to get a year breakout time or at least a year at the declared sites. but then you have to worry about the covert sites. then you need much better inspections. part of the deal that the u.s. wants is that the inspectors would have many more rights to inspect, to drastically reduce the chance that iran is building secret sites to enrich uranium and to create mechanisms for enforcement that if they're caught -- >> david, thank you very much. good insights there. and a reality check on where they stand in these good negotiations. >> thanks very much. coming up more on prime

minister netanyahu's speech. the white house weighing in with some severe criticism of the israeli leader. i'll also get reaction from the prime minister's press secretary. there's mark rega up on capitol hill. we'll check in with him when we come back. i'm only in my 60's. i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i looked at my options. then i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible

for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans it helps pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. to me, relationships matter. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. [ male announcer ] with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. so don't wait. call now and request this free decision guide to help you better understand medicare... and which aarp medicare supplement plan might be best for you. there's a wide range to choose from.

we love to travel -- and there's so much more to see. so we found a plan that can travel with us. anywhere in the country. [ male announcer ] join the millions of people who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. remember, all medicare supplement insurance plans help cover what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call now to request your free decision guide. and learn more about the kinds of plans that will be here for you now -- and down the road. i have a lifetime of experience. so i know how important that is.

israel israel's prime minister makes his case against a proposed nuclear deal with iran. this was benjamin netanyahu's

much-anticipated, controversial speech before the united states congress. he called the current proposal on the table is very bad deal. he said >> that deal will not prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons, it would all but guarantee that iran gets those weapons, lots of them. let me explain why. while the final deal has not yet been signed certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. you don't need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. you can google it. >> the prime minister spoke plenty this morning about what was wrong with the nuclear deal. but what about alternatives to the current negotiations under way in switzerland?

let's bring in the spokesperson for the prime minister traveling with the prime minister, joining us from capitol hill. there was a lot of angry reaction, mark. you're hearing it from the white house. you're hearing it from nancy pelosi the democratic leader in the house of representatives, the minority leader. let me put up on the screen what she wrote. she said that is why, as one who values the u.s./israel relationship and loves israel i was near tears throughout the prime minister's speech saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the united states and part of the p5 plus one nations and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation. wow, what strong words coming from the democratic portion of the house of representatives. your thoughts? >> this is an issue we should be able to rally around.

a nuclear-armed iran is a threat to the world. the iranians today are building intercontinental ballistic missiles wolf. their they've already got missiles that can hit my country, tel aviv and jerusalem. they're building long-range missiles to hit targets in north america. as you know no one's ever built one to carry a conventional payload. this is a threat against us all. and it shouldn't be partisan politics. >> she saez the prime minister's basically insulting the intelligence of the president of the united states and his top leadership and that this is an active condescension by the prime minister. you don't often hear those kinds of words from a strong supporter of israel in washington. >> true. i would urge you, you would urge everybody, read the transcript of what the prime minister said because i think what you heard was a very measured and a very well thought out presentation of

what's the problem with the parameters of the deal that is currently on the table and why it does not offer a real solution to the iranian nuclear threat. and i think if people look at the prime minister's remarks and review those remarks and weigh those remarks on their merits i think our case is compelling. >> what's the alternative, though? let's say the negotiations collapse. iran's going to get ahead and enrich its uranium and develop a bomb. >> we think there's a lot of iranian breavado and if the international community demands concessions from iran that they take concrete steps to dismantle their nuclear program, we believe such a deal is possible. and we would support a good deal that actually peacefully solves the iranian nuclear program. the trouble is what's currently on the table just kicks the can

down the table. and ten years from now, like with north korea, you'll have nuclear proliferation in iran. that will cause other neighbors to go for their own programs. that's a threat to us all. multilateral nuclear proliferation in the most unstable part of the world. it would be catastrophic. >> mark regev, thanks very much for joining us. >> thanks for having me. up next much more on the netanyahu address, the reaction is intense. we'll speak with one of the members of the united states congress who boycotted the address. is all this going to really hurt the u.s./israeli relationship? major: here's our new trainer ensure active heart health. heart: i maximize good stuff like my potassium and phytosterols which may help lower cholesterol. new ensure active heart health supports your heart and body so you stay active and strong. ensure, take life in.

♪♪ building aircraft, the likes of which the world has never seen. this is what we do. ♪♪ that's the value of performance. northrop grumman.

what's that thing? i moved our old security system out here to see if it could monitor the front yard. why don't you switch to xfinity home? i get live video monitoring and 24/7 professional monitoring that i can arm and disarm from anywhere. hear ye! the awkward teenage one has arrived!!!! don't be old fashioned. xfinity customers add xfinity home for $29.95 a month for 12 months. plus for a limited time, get a free security camera call 1800 xfinity or visit comcast.com/xfinityhome. we've now just heard from the president of the united states. he's in the meeting with the new secretary of defense, ash carter. reporters were inside at the

start of that meeting. the president said he did not have a chance to watch the prime minister netanyahu's speech before a joint meeting of the united states congress but he did say he read the transcript and then added pointedly there was, in his words, nothing new. we'll get that videotape played for the viewers as soon as that pool comes out of the oval office in the white house. let's get more reaction a different perspective, democratic congressman steve cohen is cohn is joining us from tennessee. you didn't attend the meeting. i assume you watched it though on television right? >> i watched it with a group of aipac representatives in my office. >> did the prime minister convince you? >> no, he didn't convince me. it was political theater and that's why i didn't attend. it used the chamber to put him in a position the president is often in. this puts him on equal footing with the president of the united states. i wasn't going to be part of it.

i didn't attend. the political theater was worthy of an oscar. it was a great speech for prime minister netanyahu's reelection in israel a good speech for speaker boehner. but it was not a good speech for the future of having a denuclearized iran. that conversation should be taking place in geneva not here in washington before the cameras. i'm afraid it created a greater schism between the president and the prime minister. and that's not good for israel and not good for world peace. >> i'm sure that the relationship which was bad to begin with is a whole lot worse right now. that personal relationship between the president of the united states and the prime minister of israel. on the substance when he said this current deal is really bad, will undermine potentially israel's very existence, what do you say? >> well, he doesn't know what the deal is. and he wouldn't be in favor of any deal. he talked about persian bazaar and you walk away and they go

back oh mister mister, i'll take this price. it's not the same thing. if the iranians don't make a deal they may straighten up their back and be tougher. i think it will hurt 200 israeli generals and officials who say this drives us further away from a good deal with iran and i think it drove us away. >> steve cohen from tennessee, thank you. let's get more analysis on what's going on. gloria borger is with us john king is with us. the reaction has been intense, bitter words from nancy pelosi speaking about insulting comments from the prime minister of israel towards the united states condescension, you don't often hear that from the democratic leader in the house. >> you don't. and according to the reporting from the white house, senior administration official while not using that language also made it very clear that -- and this is a quote, the prime

minister offered no concrete plan and the president basically said the same that he didn't hear anything new there. so i think what comes out of this is that the prime minister delivered, i thought, a very effective speech, making his case very well both to the american public and to the audience back home. but in terms of the iran nuclear negotiations nothing has changed. >> we're getting more details now from that pool spray from that photo opportunity in the white house. the president and the new secretary of defense ash carter we'll get that videotape. but from reporters inside the president also said in addition to there was nothing new in this speech he said the prime minister didn't offer any viable alternatives to preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. the administration he said put in place extensive sanctions regime after a framework deal rolled back some of its nuclear program. when he announced that framework deal, the president says netanyahu, quote, made exact

same speech as he made today. none of those warnings came true. they're going back and forth, john. >> they're going back and forth. this is not two staff members or two press secretaries. this is the president of the united states and the prime minister of one of the globe's biggest security challenges of the moment. that's what's so remarkable. this relationship it's not icy. it's broken. it's broken, and the question is when the president says there's nothing new in the speech, in the back of his mind he's hoping there's something new in two weeks. he'd like a new prime minister to deal with. it's hard to see any significant progress or agreement in this relationship through the end of the obama administration. that gives you pause on a number of global issues. they've always said despite their personal dysfunction, they can get business done. i do think if you're the president of the united states and whether you're watching at home and disagree or agree with the president, imagine being him and standing in the spot where the prime minister gave his

address and saying the president of the united states is betting the security of the world on a hope iran will change its behavior, saying the president says this is going to block iran's path. no it doesn't. it paves iran's path. from the president's perspective, he's a proud man and a competitive man, and he just saw the prime minister of an ally stand up in a very sacred spot in american politics and say, you're dead wrong. >> and accuse him of a certain amount of naivety and accusing all the people who are trying to negotiate this deal with iran. these are very complicated matters. there are clearly people inside the white house, although everyone says you can't take this personally and netanyahu did pay homage to obama on a lot of fronts before he went after the iranian deal. they're really upset about this. this is a serious breach. >> and the question is did netanyahu move the ball?

the administration wants -- this is nothing new. when they count the votes, did the prime minister make a tough sell for the administration even harder? if that's the case the president is going to have to respond. >> we're going to get that videotape from the oval office the president meeting with the defense secretary. we're going to play it for our viewers. stand by. much more of our special coverage right after this. ♪♪ miranda: ♪ i got red dirt stains on my boots and jeans. ♪ ♪ calloused fingers from my guitar strings. ♪ ♪ wild like the wind in the tall pine trees. ♪ ♪ i got roots and i got wings. ♪ ♪♪

you total your brand new car. nobody's hurt,but there will still be pain. it comes when your insurance company says they'll only pay three-quarters of what it takes to replace it.

what are you supposed to do, drive three-quarters of a car? now if you had a liberty mutual new car replacement, you'd get your whole car back. i guess they don't want you driving around on three wheels. smart. new car replacement is just one of the features that come standard with a base liberty mutual policy. and for drivers with accident forgivness,rates won't go up due to your first accident. learn more by calling switch to liberty mutual and you can save up to $423. for a free quote today,call liberty mutual insurance at see car insurance in a whole new light. liberty mutual insurance.

hillary clinton's political enemies may have one more arrow in their quiver if she decides to run for president in 2016. we're now learning that secretary clinton only used her own private e-mail account when she was the active secretary of state. that would be a violation of federal rules because it makes them less available as official records, and private e-mail accounts are more susceptible to hacking as well. the former florida governor jeb bush, a top contender for the gop nomination pounced on the controversy with this quote. transparency matters, unclassified hillary clinton e-mails should be released. you can see mine here jebbushemails.com. brianna, i guess rules were broken but how serious is this? this potentially could be pretty damaging. >> well, we're trying to figure out which rules, if rules, were broken. i don't know if this is

something that is going to be terribly terribly damaging to her, but it really hurts when it comes to trying to package her as some sort of different clinton, as a more transparent clinton. but what i think is interesting, and i take issue with, coming from her spokesperson is they say she was really operating under the spirit and the letter of the rules here. well no she wasn't. the spirit of this rule whether or not it's even changed in the last few years, is towards security and towards transparency transparency. if you talk to any expert they will tell you that having a personal e-mail address instead of a government account and using it solely is less security than using a government e-mail address and that when it comes to this issue of transparency you've got hillary clinton and maybe those aides around her who have discretion. >> hold on for one moment. we have the videotape coming in to cnn. this is the videotape of the president of the united states meeting with the defense secretary ash carter in the white house. this is going to be the first public reaction from the president to the prime minister of israel benjamin netanyahu's

controversial speech before a joint meeting of congress. the prime minister of israel basically accusing the president of undermining israel's security and actual very existence by going along potentially with what the prime minister calls a bad nuclear deal with iran. we're about to hear from the president to get his reaction. this is the first time we have had an opportunity to hear from mr. obama. >> tell me when everybody's in. everybody's all set? all right. well this is going to be the first opportunity that i have to get an extensive debriefing from secretary carter who took a trip last week to afghanistan and other parts of the region. he'll be giving me some impressions about how we're planning our drawdown and transition in afghanistan. and talk about some other regional issues. one issue that we will be discussing is iran and obviously that's been a topic of great interest today.

so let me just make a couple comments on that. i did not have a chance to watch prime minister netanyahu's speech. i was on a video conference with our european partners with respect to ukraine. i did have a chance to take a look at the transcript. and as far as i can tell there was nothing new. the prime minister i think appropriately pointed out that the bond between the united states and america is unbreakable, and on that point, i thoroughly agree. he also pointed out that iran has been a dangerous regime and continues to engage in activities that are contrary to the interest of the united states to israel, and to the region. and on that we agree. he also pointed out the fact that iran has repeatedly threatened israel and engaged in the most venomous of

anti-semitic statements. no one can dispute that. but on the core issue, which is how do we prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon which would make it far more dangerous and would give it scope for even greater action in the region the prime minister didn't offer any viable alternatives. so let's be clear about what exact ly exactly the central concern should be both for the united states and for israel. i've said since before i became president that one of my primary goals in foreign policy would be preventing iran from getting nuclear weapons, and with the help of congress and our international partners we constructed an extraordinarily effective sanctions regime that pressured iran to come to the table to negotiate in