go and smell the roses! [cheers and applause] >> jon: here it is. here it is your moment of zen. >> money and politics is speech whether you are giving captioning sponsored by comedy central ( cheers and applause ) >> stephen: whew! whew! welcome to the report, everybody. >> stephen! stephen! stephen!

stephen! stephen! stephen! >> stephen: ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for being here. ( cheers and applause ) folks, it's so wonderful to be here. you know, ladies and gentlemen, if you know the show,un i love being a christian. i mean there are so many perks -- eternal salvation with our lord in heaven, and a magical rabbit who passes out candy. hindus you're missing out. i'm not sure what that elephant gets you. and this week, we christians got some very special news. >> the search for the holy grail could be over. >> two spanish historians say they have found the holy grail, a cup said to have been used by jesus during the last supper. they say it was hidden since the 11th century inside another ancient cup housed in a basilica in spain. >> stephen: they found the holy grail. and they know it dates back to jesus because the bottom reads,

"not dishwasher safe because it hasn't been invented yet." ( laughter ) , of course, every time someone finds the holy grail skeptics come out of the woodwork just because there are 200 supposed grails in europe alone. that's not even counting the one lil' jon found. well, folks, as a man of faith, i believe these people are charletans because i've got the real holy grail. behold! ( cheers and applause ) i discovered it this morning at our neighborhood deli. mere miles from the sacred ground of st. patrick's' cathedral. it was entrusted to me by a mysterious middle eastern man. ( laughter ) if you're familiar with robert langdon's symbological analyses, all the signs are right here. okay. look here, jimmy. the three beans signify the holy trinity-- the father, the son,

and the holy roast. and the word "cappuccino," clearly the sfght capuchin monks who hid the grail from the invading saracen armies in the 14th century. and the clincher-- that it belonged to christ is that i found some beard hair on the rim. ( laughter ) and i have no beard. of course, there's only one way to be absolutely sure. we all know what happens to he who drinks from a false grail. ♪ ♪ ( screaming ) ( laughter ) >> stephen: he chose not good. ( laughter ) here goes, here goes. aarrgghh! aaarrgghh! that coffee is hot!

put i'm fine, so that's the grail. and i guess i'm going to live forever. ( cheers and applause ). now, nation, everybody knows i'm a huge fan of the five conservative justices on the supreme court. they're like a judicial version of one direction in that all their rulings go in one direction. ( laughter ) but two years ago, i was betrayed by the cute one, chief justice john roberts because in an act of juda-prudence, he voted to uphold obamacare, and that broke my heart. and even worse, under obamacare, i am covered for cardiac breakage. ( laughter ) folks, i've got some good news. my boyfriend's back. >> breaking news on the supreme court, changing the rules again when it comes to campaign contributions. >> you can now give to as many candidates as you want. there is no limit on how much total money any individual person can spend. the court's majority opinion,

written by the chief justice john roberts said money is speech and that you can't limit how much an individual person can spend. he said if the first amendment can abide by flag burning, nazi parades, and protests at military funerals it can abide by people spending as much money as they want to support the candidates of their choices. >> stephen: well said-- unlimited campaign contributions are just as good as nazis. ( laughter ) now, the case in question is "mccutcheon v. f.e.c.," and in a 5-4 decision, the courts eliminated the $123,200 cap on the total amount you can donate, which is great for all of us, if by "us" you mean the 591 people who gave the maximum allowable donation in 2012. and if you're not one of us, you really should be. ( laughter ) we have great parties, two of them. folks, this is all about the

freedom of speech. aggregate caps unfairly limit how loud my cash could talk inspector the antiquated assumption giving politicians greasy paper bags full of money is somehow a corrupting influence. but justice roberts teaches us government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel towards those who support him or the political access such support may afford. ingratiation and access are not corruption. in fact, those things don't even have the appearance of corruption. did you get that? ingratiation and access are not corruption. so if you think legislators lining up to listen to megadonors like the koch brothers or george soros appears corrupt, good news-- john roberts has ruled you don't think that. laug( laughter ) now, roberts knows there's only one real type of corruption-- quid pro quo. or the direct exchange of an official acts for money, and

that is easy to proof, prove, as long as politics remember to hold on to their itemized corruption receipts. ( laughter ) the point is everyone in america should celebrate this ruling. here not to celebrate this ruling is legal affairs editor for "slate," emily bazelon. emily, thanks so much for coming back to see us. ( applause ) isn't this wonderful news for oppressed minorities in the united states? >> like rich people. >> stephen: yes. the 1%. there's no minority smaller, and we are the ones who had our voices stifled by these campaign donation limitations. >> no, i don't think rich people are the ones who have had their voices stifled. we have plenty of influence of rich people in politics. >> stephen: not as much add wakd. that is what john roberts is saying, while we have influence not as much as we coltd possibly have.

>> right, but for you, the rich people, to have all the influence you could possibly have, are you going to leave rest of us with no influence because -- >> stephen: you are free to have collective action. get together or get rich. >> but we-- we -- >> stephen: have you even thought about it? >> not seriously. >> stephen: okay. >> we don't have enough money to compete so it would be so easy for candidates and parties to go to the few people who can quickly fund campaigns that there's no reason to raise money or really care about the views of everybody else. >> stephen: but, i think it's better for america because let's say-- where do you live, connecticut? >> yeah. >> stephen: okay, you're in connecticut, and in your district, you're supporting the candidate you like for congress. >> okay. >> stephen: and let's say this person gets elected and you're represented in congress by that one person, all right? >> yes. >> stephen: shell adelson living in las vegas gives money to his congressman and is represent bide them, and then he can give to every other congressman as well, and he is then represented in every district of america. isn't that more democracy?

>> no, because-- ( laughter ) my congresswoman-- woman-- should be representing the views of the people who live in her district, in my city. and the notion that you can have a few wellie people from all over the country who give to everyone and who are going to be incredibly courted by the insiders and the party, that will give them so much more power. >> stephen: you think that's corruption? do you think that is corruption? >> i think that is corruption, because -- >> stephen: you're wrong. john roberts said that doesn't appear like crums. >> john robert's definition of corruption is so narrow it has nothing to do with the real problems in our system. what is really a problem is all of this influence. it's not bribery, which is essentially all we're left with and is very hard to prove. it is the way in which money shaims the positions that candidates take, even this those positions have nothing to do with what most americans believe should be the law. >> stephen: maybe john roberts has more faith in american people and billionaires like than you do. >> he has a lot more faith in

emergency billaire's than i do, but in justice breyer's dissent you have the concern of all the other citizens of the country. when the framers were trying to figure out how the elections should work. there are writings how they wanted to make sure it was broadly distribute among the citizenry. >> stephen: the cap for primary and general election in everyone two-year psyche cell $5200. i like what justice thomas had to say in his addendum to the decision, i assume. he said there shouldn't be any cap. is he ahead of his time-- by which i mean about maybe one year? >> proebl because now that the definition of corruption is so narrow that it's only bribery, it will be relatively easy for the conservative justices, all five of them, to say that there's no legitimate rationale for congress to impose even the $5200 per candidate, per cycle

limit. it does feel like that is around the corner. >> stephen: roberts says ingratiation is not corruption. do you think ingratiation is corruption, or is it just enshrining the constitutional rights to good manners? >> i don't think ingratiation is the same as good manners. >> stephen: really? if someone gives me $1 million for my campaign air, little note would be nice. >> but a little note -- >> stephen: and flowers and maybe e.p.a. regulations being cut? >> i guess it's the step from the flowers to the e.p.a. regulation being cut that i worry about. i'm all for the flowers? >> emily, thank you very much for joining me. emily bazelon,óñóñóñw?çw?ç?wówóñ

( cheers and applause ) >> stephen: welcome back, everybody. folks, if you're paying attention to the news, you know that america is in decline. we are circling the drain and our only hope is that we're too fat to go down it. ( laughter ) and nobody knows that better than bill o'reilly. >> during president obama's five years in office median income has dropped, individual americans are less secure. the job market remains sluggish. the country is weaker. millions of americans are now looking for handouts. the u.s.a. has lost its will to confront dangerous situations. born out of wedlock. poor, ill-educated women. the education system is corrupt.

the cynical entertainment industry pedals garbage, crude behavior at sports areinas is tolerated. >> stephen: yes, crude behavior in sports arenas. so people are so impolite they refuse to even participate in the wave. ( laughter ) ( applause ) and-- ( applause ) o'reilly knows-- o'reilly knows the source of our decline. >> why is our nation in decline? tonight i can give you this-- equality is what is hurting president obama. the left has seized that word "equality" to push its progressive agenda. we have income equality. marriage equality. gender equality. and on and on and on. >> stephen: yes, income, marriage, gender, on and on and on. and yet those last three don't mean anything, but they don't mean anything equally. ( laughter ) ( applause ) and bill laid out why fighting for equality is pointless. >> each human being is porn with abilities but they are not equal

abilities. i will never have physical equality with my fellow irish man shaquille o'neal. he's bigger and stronger than i am by nature. i will never be as smart as einstein. as talented as moz arts. or as kind as mother teresa. >> stephen: oh, come on, bill, that list is too modest. you'll also never be as fast as usain bolt, as emotionally mature as a toddler, or understand how tides work as well as a middle schooler. you'll never be as strong as a silverbacks gorilla, or be able to camouflage yourself as well as a flounder or hold a small sack of papers together as well as a binder clip or have the fuel efficiency and smooth handling of the 2014 toyota avalon. o'reilly's logic is airtight. some people are better at some things than other people are at that thing. so trying to achieve equality is

unnatural. take income inequality. shaquille o'neal is taller than bill o'reilly. therefore, the richest 1% of americans should control 40% of the nation's wealth. ( laughter ) and bill is not quite as good looking as george clooney, so men should not be allowed to marry each other, not even bill and george which is too bad because the kids would be beautiful. ( laughter ) the point is if bill o'reilly is no einstein-- and i think we can all agree he's not-- then equality is forever out of our reach. >> the truth is there will never be equality in this world. it's impossible, an opium-laced dream. >> stephen: yes, i believe that's what dr. king was talking about in his "i have an opium-laced dream" speech. come on! ( cheers and applause ) there aren't any mountaintops on

the washington mall. [ male announcer ] get to subway for the spicy italian, now the $3 six-inch select of april. try it fresh toasted on garlic bread with shredded mozzarella, top it with your choice of veggies like cucumbers and red onions, and it's still just $3. and that's just one of our april featured values. we've also got the tasty turkey breast and black forest ham as our featured $5 footlong. for just $5, load it up with all your favorites like green peppers and baby spinach. the $3 six inch select and the featured $5 footlong -- get both all april long! subway. eat fresh. get both all april long! i like it. must see. i found a great new listing. little busy here. i love this neighborhood. nice. uh huh. it's the agent. they accepted. shut up! [ laughs ] they accepted...owww. [ male announcer ] that moment when it all comes together. that's your moment of trulia.

i'll just press this, and you'll save on both. ding! ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, llllet's get ready to bundlllllle... [ holding final syllable ] oh, yeah, sorry! let's get ready to bundle and save. now, that's progressive. oh, i think i broke my spleen!

home insurance provided and serviced by third party insurers. but, please don't try this at home. because you simply can't do this at home. go and smell the roses! ( cheers and applause ). >> stephen: welcome back, everybody. my guest tonight is a national security journalist who is critical of the c.i.a.'s own warfare. i am hez at that point to sit next to him. please welcome mark mazzetti. ( cheers and applause ). hey, mark, nice to see you. thanks for coming back. >> thank you. >> stephen: as i said you're

a pulitzer prize-winning correspondent for the "new york times." your book is called "the way of the knife," now available in paperback and it's about the c.i.a., it being a secret army, and something called "the war at the ends of the earth." what does that mean? where is the end of the earth? ( laughter ). >> a few places, many place. >> stephen: okay. >> the idea i wanted to capture in the book was that there's been some whole history post-9/11 that hasn't been in iraq and hasn't been in afghanistan. there's been this whole what i call the shadow war in places like pakistan andiem expep parts of africa where war is being waged outside of declared war zones and this is as much a part of the history of 2001 on than what happened in iraq and afghanistan. >> stephen: do you think the c.i.a. is doing the right thing these days? >> they're now really more than ever a paramilitary organization. >> stephen: do you think that's a good idea? >> i think that they're-- it's good and bad. >> stephen: come on, pick a side. ( laughter ) grow a pair. >> i think there's problems when you have wars that are waged in

secret without a lot of public accountability. >> stephen: okay, now who is responsible for the c.i.a. becoming that way? is it bush or obama? and i'll tell you if i agree with you. >> it's actually both. >> stephen: both? >> it's actually both. >> stephen: then i can't make up my mind. i'm with you. it's good and bad as you said. >> it started with bush, certainly since after 9/11, but it's embraced by obama during the last five years. there's a lot of continuity with the counter-terrorism programs between bush and obama. >> stephen: petraeus, in one of those record that is came out when he was found out to be you know having a little something-something on the side. in one of the recordings he said he wanted to be the head of the c.i.a. because that's where the action was going to be militarily. is this what he was talking about, that the c.i.a. is doing a lot of military operations that are effective in the war on terror, the army is not allowed to do? >> they're doing paramilitary operations in places where the army is not allowed to go. >> stephen: are we at war with those places once we're

blowing stuff up there? >> we're in those places, sometimes not at war with those places. we were at war in pakistan but not necessarily at war with the government of pack stap. we're in war in yemen -- >> stephen: that's threading a very narrow needle there. we are blowing up people in your country, but we like you. ( laughter ). >> right. >> stephen: okay, so they're doing this mostly with drones, right? >> a lot of drones. there has been escalation of special operations missions around the globe in parts of africa. so not just the c.i.a. it's also parts of the pentagon that have sort of blended together over the years to do these kind of secret mission. >> stephen: the blowing stuff up with drones-- there was a lot of criticism and obama says he's not doing it anymore of strapping guys to tables and pouring water over their face or making them stand up for 36 hours or in a brightly lit room for seven days or something like that. but there doesn't seem to be a big public outcry about blowing them up real good in some place

sandy and rocky. why do you think the difference? >> i think there are different reasons for that. i think that some democrats have been less hesitant to criticize a democratic president about this. but there's also differences in, you know, warfare when you have someone in your custody, you're supposed to treat them humanely, versus a battlefield kill. this is the argument that's made -- >> stephen: let's just never have them in our custody. >> exactly. >> stephen: what does "the way of the knife" mean? it sounds like some short of kung fu or a new cooking show on the food network where they assassinate a rib roast. what is "the way of the knife"? >> it came from a speech john brennan gave several years ago contrasting the big wars in afghanistan and iraq calling it the hammer, saying the obama administration in these other wars uses a scalpel, and a scalpel is sort of a euphemism to imply something is without costs or consequences. so i used knife because knife

fights are far less blooder. >> stephen: do you think there's any way waging these military actions in countries where there is not a declared war could ever come back to bite us in the ass? and if so, isn't that kind of a good thing because have you seen america's ass? it could use a couple of bites taken out of it. >> it certainly has that potential. secret operations throughout history, there's blow-back a lot of times. the sort of more you have operations carried out without a whole lot of public oversight or even internal governmental oversight, the more chance of things going wrong. so certainly one of the questions is how much of the-- of these operations radicalize people who weren't previously disposed to these militants? and so that's something we're going to have to pay attention to. >> stephen: are there things in the book truly revelations or are you a c.i.a. operative working forlet "new york times"

telling us things to put off off the scent of the real things happening in the c.i.a.? >> everything that i-- is in there is what i believe to be true, and what i've reported. some reported in the past there's a lot of new information in the book. and as i said, it's as much of a sort of history of this period as can be told when there's still a lot that's still classified. lou>> stephen: loud and clear. mark, thank you so much. mark mazzetti. the book is "the way of the knife." we'll be right back. ( cheers and applause ) [ man ] wanna see some allergens?

[ together ] ew! [ man ] how would you deal with them? um... ninjas. [ male announcer ] no need for ninjas. reduce up to 95% of inanimate allergens becoming airborne from fabrics with new, dermatologist tested febreze allergen reducer.

your chance to watch full seasons of tv's hottest shows for free with xfinity on demand. there's romance, face slaps, whatever that is, pirates, helicopters, pirate-copters... argh! hmm. it's so huge, it's being broadcast on mars. heroes...bad guys... asteroids. available only on mars. there's watching. then there's watchathoning. ♪

( cheers and applause ) >> stephen: that's it for the report, everybody. good night. captioning sponsored by comedy central captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org britta: missed you at lunch today. did you slip out for a quickie with professor hot stuff? her name is michelle and how did you know? there's a gold star on your fly. [grunts] [laughs] you weren't kidding. it's nice to have a girlfriend with a sense of humor and one who recognizes good work. [man talking indistinctly] see, that's g. that's the most important chord. in my mind, it-- it stands for god. why is annie talking to micro-nipples? vaughn? whatever. but not like a bible god because i think god is in everything. you're complicated. ♪ annie ♪ annie where you going today? ♪