w for fund-raising, so when some guys on the democratic side who can write big checks they are going to do so and the gap that exists right now is slowly going to come -- maybe even quickly come shorter and shorter, and narrower and narrower. >> david thanks for your time tonight. >> thank you. >> seeing your money corrupt the country, and saying gosh i wish i doesn't like this but saying i'm in favor of changing the law that prevents me from doing this is another thing.

on the date in 1988 jimmy swagart stopped denying the media reports that he was hiring prostitutes. and then here comes the water

works. >> i have sinned against you my lord, and i would ask that your preciousness would wash and cleanse every stain. >> stains! i don't want to know this? what is jimmy swagart doing these days? what else rallying against gay marriage. >> i have never seen a man in my life i wanted to marry. if one ever looks at me like that i'm going to kill him and tell god he died. >> so you know what that means. time marches on. we begin with a man getting a back massage from baby goats. it's jimmy swagart. man tries to get up but

apparently now he is being held captive. i don't know what is stranger the man with goats on him, or the person who is filming it. billy ryan? part of a robotic competition these kids created a robot that can play basketball. he is a great shooter. clean cut. great intelligence. where did this jeremy lin come from again. and now golf shots. big swing. the ball seems to be heading into the crowd. he finds a man on the ground. he is fine except the ball went up the leg of his trousers. unfortunately mickelson didn't try to hit the ball into the

shortless. and a story to tell his grandchildren. the titan of occupy wall street. that. >>jennifer granholm joins current tv. a former two term governor. >>people like somebody who's got a spine. >>determined to find solutions... >>we need government to ensure that people have freedom. >>driven to find the truth... >>what's really going on? >>fearless, independent and above all, politically direct. [ laura ] maine is known for its lighthouses, rocky shore and most importantly its lobster. it's the tastiest, the sweetest, the freshest. nobody can ever get enough. [ male announcer ] it's lobsterfest at red lobster the one time of year you can savor 12 exciting lobster entrees like lobster lover's dream or new maine lobster and shrimp trio. [ laura ] hot, right out of the shell. i love lobster.

i'm laura mclennan from spruce head, maine, and i sea food differently.

your chances of winning the mega million jackpot 1 in 135

million, your chances of wall street changing its tune? the odds sound equally absurd, but following the occasion of zuccoti park this past winter, jamie dimon appeared to be echoing some of the outcries. he said blaming the banks is just a form of discrimination. but diamond now says: many on the right equate regulating wall street to suffocating the nation's big banks but the murdoch owned "wall street journal," invokes

the law that does not do enough financial oversight. bring in paul abrams crib ought to writer who wrote this up for the "huffington post" yesterday. thanks your four time. >> thank you for having me. >> when i read your piece, i thought maybe i missed something were his comments as surprising to you as they would have been to me. >> they were when they came out, but as you said i think occupy wall street changed the dialogue

in the country, and they see there is an increasing chance that president obama is going to be elected and very much like the mafia of old they are going to bet on both sides. i think this is probably the least that they care about. so in essence if you think of this as one big negotiation, they are signalling that this is what is least important to them. >> this leads me in two % directions, the first one being that is there any chance that jamie dimon or this journal actually might get something they want? >> it certainly gives a lot more cover to people in congress but i think the tax issue for congressional republicans is their brand, and so when i wrote that they abandoned the

republicans, jays my jamie dimon has abandoned the republican brand because it is not the most important thing to them. as far as the "wall street journal" is concerned it reminds me of john f. kennedy's quote when he said it is like the vatican city newspaper criticizing the pope. >> is this just going to wind up being lip service and kind of a feel-good moment? >> well i think that there's -- it's a step in the direction. i think they have won something with the rhetoric. i don't suspect that inside -- i don't suspect that the lobbyists will be changing very much but it certainly gives a lot more backing to the notion that everybody basically agrees that we need to raise revenues and the best place to do that is number 1 raising taxes on those who can most afford it. >> i read the quote from dimon

the second part of it in addition to a certain surcharge at a million and then 10 million, was the other part i don't think people should be able to pass unlimited amounts on to their kids. isn't this the essence of big money? >> i think so keith. i just think that we was recognizing a certain reality in the dialogue and if the occupy movement continues, if the police call momentum continues to move in the direction of raising taxes and doing the things that are necessary for the government to do such as building roads and bridges, et cetera, i think that they will have again, indicated what their least important concern is, and they are more concerned with issues, such as keeping the

banks big, keeping their power and prestige, and also avoiding a tax on financial transactions. by the way keith, do you know what the average time that a share is now withheld. >> must be microscopic. >> 24 seconds. [ laughter ] >> relative to the occupy message is there anything that those people involved in that protest can take from this and say this is a -- this is an mo for us to proceed in the future or is this just a one-off thing? >> no, i think they can absolutely do it. >> basically the bully pulpit that the president has but hasn't used that much really recently wasn't really competitive with the right-wing media ability to get things out in many different directions. occupy by their actions brought

a lot of attention to what they were doing, so everybody was talking about what they were doing, and then people started talking about what they were for. so i think they absolutely should continue what they are doing. >> yeah, and the idea of a point of view rather than agenda was perhaps integral as well. >> yes. >> thank you for your team. >> thank you. >> another bad weekend for occupy's slanderer, plus part five of the breitbart theater.

even in the days of hyperpartisanship could the supreme court really get a chance. and breitbart video rage is on the new news network. >>welcome to the war room.

>>jennifer granholm joins current tv. a former two-term governor. >>make your voice heard. >>detremined to find solutions. >>that partnership in order to invest in our country is critical. >>driven to find the truth. >>how did romney get his groove back? >>fearless, independent and above all, politically direct. the supreme court challenge to affirmative action because they haven't gotten around to challenging brown v board of education. here is "countdown"'s tom three nominees for today's worst person in the world. paul babeu, you probably already heard the a mexican gentlemen samed jose not only alleged a

long-standing gay relationship but insisted babeu and his attorney threatened to deport him if he revealed the relationship. turns out that was last month, and we noticed because the newspaper has deleted jose's comment. so babeu's boyfriend posted a comment on about him on his website, and his campaign

manager blamed it on babeu easementally ill sister. runner up frank luntz. he did the usually tired distasteful anti-obama humor and then went over the line. lovely. you want to have people visualizing chasing the president of the united states when he is on foot chasing him down. winner once again, andrew breitbart who's decent into madness accelerated over the weekend. this time not with a wine-fuelled episode, but a simple tweet which indicated that the universal rejection outside of the right-wing bubble, was only further confounding his limited capacities.

but breitbart is tonight in more than just twitter trouble. the district judge in d.c. refused his motion to dismiss the lawsuit against him by shirley sherrod, to whom he hounded out of her job. the judge noted that the law breitbart cited did not take effect until a month after sherrod had sued him and missed the deadline for filing his motion to dismiss by two more weeks. all of which brings up to the fifth episode of our series, an dry breitbart match-up video theater. >> you are freaks and animals! >> how [ censor bleep ] out there make fun of brittany after all she has been through. all you people want is more!

more! more! more! you are lucky she even performed for your bastards! >> stop raping people! >> believe brittany alone! >> stop raping the people! >> right now! i mean it. >> you freaks! you filthy freaks! you filthy filthy freaks! [ sobbing ] >> with my apologies to chris crocker, and of course brittany. andy breitbart today east worst person in the world! still doing a little exploring... on it. my sign is sagittarius i'm into spanish cheese, my hairline is receding but i'm getting a weave. (falsetto chorus) getting a weave.

who wants some ronald tonight!? geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.

what is settled law in this country? and what might be reversed at anytime even after countless

affirmations in the courts. the supreme court will revisit the role affirmative action plays in higher education. the high court said it will hear fisher v texas, to determine if abigail was denied admission to the university of texas because she was white. the federal appeals court banned the affirmative action. but justice o'connor has been exceeded by samuel. he wrote: right now students in the top 10% of texas high schools are

automatically admitted into that state's public university system. miss fisher missed the cut off and was put in to other things that were considered like work experience and community service. the last time the supreme court ruled on affirmative action and why are they taking this up now? >> probably a simple head count. the court is much more conservative. and keegan was a very strong vote likely in favor of texas. and the swing justice, justice kennedy voted previously against the position of sandra day o'connor in the case you just mentioned. but the odd thing is really timing. one of the most controversial

parts of the o'connor decision is she sort of arbitrarily said we're going to allow this to happen for 25 more years, and a lot of people viewed that as why 25 years even justice brensberg and breyer would not sign on to that opinion. but even under that analysis we would have only -- you know the difference of maybe 15 more years for this to be good law. so there has been a lot of controversy about how o'connor wrote that opinion. but you are right. the question here is often one of what is called starry decisis. the court has always maintained it is not just a head count, it tries to have some consistency. the lower courts ruled that this

plan of texas fell squarely within the guidelines of gruder so in order to come out the other way, you really have to shatter gruder and say we have five justices going the other way. >> what hand to the court saying we decided it this way, congress if you want to change it you change it. what happened to that line? >> the problem with gruder is it was really fractured i mentioned the two justices would not sign on to o'connor's 25-year statement. you had a fracture among the decents, although they generally agreed that there should be no race consideration. there is also an added consideration where it has an out or justices. and whether mr. fisher still has a legitimate reason to ask for relief. the irony is she is just asking

for her hundred dollar backs and the housing deposit, but clearly four justices wanted to see this case on the merits. there's no question that they have -- the presumed five votes that could send gruder in to the ashpin of history, with it could go affirmative action at least in consideration of race. >> how much would it go? is it limited to educational applications or what? >> it depends on how they write it. as you just quoted sandra day o'connor's replacement makes a very clear position on this. that you can't fight race discrimination by considering race, and they could very well adopt that. you do have five strong justices here when it comes to not liking affirmative action and considering race issues. you know kennedy has been more

nuanced, he hasn't been quite as strong, but chief justice roberts has been overoutspoken against the use of race. so my guess is the four justices that accepted this case, they have gruder in the cross hairs. they want to see it overturned. >> jonathan