ut couch potatoes? i live in a glass house. i got my own gut issues but i don't go around accusing people of being couch potatoes. all right. up next! >> good evening. trayvon martin's confessed killer had yet to be charged and then this from angela corey? >> we charged george zimmerman with murder in the second degree. a capias has been issued for his arrest. with the filing of that information andhe will have a right to appear in seminole within 24 hours and thus formal prosecution will begin. >> shortly after the announcement. trayvon's parents spoke at a press conference in washington.

>> we simply wanted an arrest. we wanted no more, nothing less. we just wanted an arrest, and we got it. and i say thank you. >> this is just the beginning. we have a long way to go and we have faith. >> joining me professionor kenneth nunn and staff writer for the root general adesmon harris. jenae, let me start with you. there is no question few cases have been a rorschach test forays relations and have generated so much talk and organization among certain communities, demanding justice be done. is there a sense of victory, a sense of relief? how would you characterize the emotions out there? >> i think there is a huge sense of better late than never and a huge sense of relief that finally, it seems that the wheels of justice are turning in this case. as you heard in the clip there is a long way to go.

this really is just the beginning. but after so much time 44 full days since trayvon martin was shot and killed, without an arrest. i think people are finally breathing a sigh of relief, that it seems the justice system is function if anything. >> in truth, 44 days, 45 technically would not be so long in a murder indication were it not for the fact that initially the local presidentolice department police department said no charges will be filed. >> that's what evoked such outrage and anger among so many communities. take us through the next step. what will happen mechanically? when will zimmerman be in court? when therewill there be some show of evidence so people will understand the logic behind these charges? >> you are right. this is the very beginning. there is a long road ahead. at this point, all we have is charges that were filed in the case. and what will happen is zimmerman will be arrested. in fact, he has been arrested on

the charges as has been reported and he will appear before a judge, probably tomorrow and have an opportunity to have a bond hearing and post bail. he will also be arraigned on the information that charges him with second degree murder and then the next step will be whether or not there will be a motion from the defense on the stand your ground law. and if there is, in fact, a motion, then there will be a hearing that could take a number of days. in fact, you heard the prosecutor, cory talk about the fact that in an unrelated indicates, they had a motion that took four days to decide whether or not there was probable cause to go forward with the case. and so that will happen in the case. and if that is defeated then the next step is to prepare this case for trial. certainly, there is no resolution of this case in the immediate future. it's going to be a long haul from here. >> you have raised a series of issues i hope we have time to get to. the stand your ground law played

a pivotal role in whether charges could or would or should be brought here before we get to the hearing, though, the charges brought were second degree murder not first degree murder. first degree murder is pre-meditated murder. the prosecutor here not alleging pre-medtation as though this was planned days, weeks, half an hour ahead of time. this is more an instantaneous crime. let's put up on the t.v. screen there for folks to read the definition of second degree murder. it's really a depraved indifference standard depraved mind with regard to human life. what does that mean? >> elliott t means two things. you get first degree murder as you said with pre-medtation. you can have an intent to kill case that's a murder and a homicide without pre-medtation that still is intent to kill. so that would be second degree murder. the other thing that would be second degree murder is what we have here when we are talking about a depraved mind case. most jurisdictions or at least in the common law, they always use the word depraved heart,

sometimes, depraved mind. what we are talking about is a form of super recklessness when somebody does something that's so reckless that it seems to demonstrate a lack of regard for human life. so, for example, one of those big high buildings that you have in new york city, if someone is at the top of that building and they should know that someone is beneath them. there is a risk that someone is beneath them if they chuck something off of that building, then that would be recklessness. but if they know somebody is down there and they chuck it off, that would be super reckless. >> that's the type of thing we are looking at. >> what you are saying, if somebody took a cynder block and dropped it from the 10th story of a building, knowing there was a crowd of people beneath them and somebody was hit and killed that would indicate a depraved indifference to human life and hence be murder 2? >> that's correct. >> what the prosecutor would charge was that when zimmerman used his gun in the way he did he was doing so that was showing depraved indifference to human life and, hence, murder 2 in

this context? >> yes, either that or that he intended to kill when he used the gun. look at some of the facts that we have here. we have at least some witnesses that have come forward and say that zimmerman was on the top and that they heard trayvon martin screaming for his life. it's a very tough and difficult 9-1-1 call to listen to when you hear that screaming. and then the shot comes. well, if they are going to allege that there was a fight, zimmerman was angry. he took the gun out. he knew that he was shooting a human being in a vital part of their body when he shot that weapon that would be more than just a depraved mind killing. that would be an intent to kill. >> jenae, you have seen this sort of ground swell of public support and demand for the charges be brought. will there now be some sense we should give the justice system time to run its course? there will there be some relief and, hence, will people step back and say the special prosecutor did what we want her to do.

give her a month, two months, six months to and will that pressure subside? >> sure, i think the intensity and the anger may subside but i don't think there is any chance ting point people are going to stop paying attention to this case. a lot of people are very invested in it. it brought to light a lot of issues of race, a lot of legal issues, and people are paying attention. so i think that there will be a willingness to let the justice system work. but at the same time, lay people don't need to know, you know all of the nuances of second degree murder and first degree murder. they know an unarmed child was killed and that they want to see justice served. >> what will happen now to the local prosecutor. it seems to me he is in the hot seat. the local police department that seemed almost in a cavalier way dismissed criminal charges look at this case dismissively and ignored it until the political pressure got to the point where they could no long he do so? will the pressure shift to them and will there be demands for

the local prosecutor's officer and local police department to be investigated to determine whether it is symptomatic of a larger, more structural problem with law enforcement with sanford? >> i think people's attention will be split on this issue. some people will be focusing on there. we should remember there is a federal hate crimes invest going on. i think it's very meaningful to people who believe it was racially motivated. i think you will people tuning in on in to this case on a number of different levels. >> professor, as a former prosecutor, as lawyers, you and i are more interested in the nitty gritty of what what will happen. tell me if you think i am wrong, the defendant almost necessarily will take the stand to make his case because his is the only voice that will permit his defense, which is the stand your ground statute to be heard. if you were cross examining him, he takes the stand. he says, look, i got into a

scuffle, you know, trayvon began to fight. i was acting in self defense how do you cross exam him in this case? >> i think what's going to be critical here,shot eliot is going to be the timeline. for edgesics will be important because they will establish what the timeline was and what happened when. and what you are going to talk about is you are going to talk about: when did do you this? when did you say that? weren't you on the phone when that happened? and you are going to try to see whether or not there is sufficient time for events to occur the way that he said they occurred. and really, what you are looking at more so is how well does this story jibe with the forensics? how well does it jibe with the layout of the area in which the crime took place? and that would be the area that i think you would want to cross examine mr. zimmerman on because the other issues about his state of mind, you really don't have any way of testing those insofar as counter acting what his story is. but you can talk to the other witnesses about what they

observed if he says, well i was walking back to the car and other witnesses come forward who con tra dict that, then that would be the type of evidence that you would want to confront mr. zimmerman with. >> quite remarkably, i agree with you the phone records and the phone call to 911 are kind of remarkable. you almost have an audiotape of everything leading up to the very moment before this crime occurred and phone records from the call from florida from the girlfriend that can begin to piece together a timeline that will be i think despositive about as you say whether or not his defense will hold weather or not. jenae, i want to come back to you, to the other big political issue here. many, i suppose but one that jumps out at me which is the stand your ground laws generally. are they going to become a focal point for pushback, people saying, these are just an excuse for people to be vigilantes. should they be repealed? will this be a ongoing debate? >> i absolutely think so. of course, they've also been brought into the public

discussion with respect to the shootings over the weekend in tulsa. there has been some talk that those may have had something to do with the one shooter who reportedly was trying to avenge one of his parents' deaths. so i think people have realized these laws do possibly encourage vigilanteism and we don't want people just running around, you know, killing people whenever they can claim they feel intimidated. i could go on the street in d.c. right now and say someone scared me and i shouldn't be able to just say they were suspicious they were intimidating. i am going to kill them. it's not how we expect the law to work in america. >> it puts in play the state of mind of the potential defendant in a way that makes for prosecutors getting convictions difficult. professor, two quick questions. give me a sense of the timeline so we can understand how long do you think it will take before this case moves to trial so we can get resolution first the hearing and the trial and second, permission, if he is convicted and we have to say if because these are just charges. what does he face? >> well, as far as the

penalties, the maximum you are going to get out of this is life in prison 70s. so he could get anything up to life in prison with the fact that a gun was used you would expect to see somewhere betweenbetween 15 to 25 years because that would be an enhancement of the sentence in this case. so that's what we are thinking about in terms of the sentence that would be imposed. now insofar as a timeline, i think what would probably happen is, after arainment, there would -- he would, you know, more than likely, there would be a bond hearing that would take place at that point in time. my expectation is he probably would be released from custody, particularly since he did not run. he had the opportunity to go. there was no reason for him to stay in the state of florida or in the country. but he did. he came back, you know, he has a relatively clean record, although we know that he has that one prior conviction. so i think he will probably get released on some sort of bond which he will probably be able to post.

so then, since he is out of custody, that will slow things down a bit. i think that the next thing that will happen is that the defense, themselves, will file their stand your ground motions and the court will have to schedule some time for that to be heard. so it will probably take place within a time frame of 30 days from the time that the defendant is initially arraigned and has hurst first appearance. depending upon the outcome of that motion we will see whether or not a trial is set and certainly there will be time for discovery and motions and all of the forensics and the expert witnesses who get involved in this. this case is going to be around for a long time. it's going to be a very closely watched capes and it's going to be a highly and -- case and it's going to be a very technically litigated case because of these issues. >> it's the multiple issues it races that relate not only to florida criminal justice but also the entire nation and race relations. professor at the university of

florida levin college of law, keg kenneth nonun and staff writer for the root jenae thank you. >> mitt romney tries to make up ground with women voters next on vp"viewpoint"! message created by a current tv viewer for eharmony.com >>(woman) don't wait for her to make the first move. >>(man) don't talk about your third or forth date. >> (several people speaking at the same time) >>(woman) be yourself. >>relax. >>thats... nice. nice sweater. >>ya? >>ya. >>but i told you i have the ugliest sweaters.

[ mocking tone ] i'm ms. brown. i'm soooo chocolatey. i'm giving away money to make people like me-eee -- is what he said. and i was like "you watch your mouth. she's my friend." friend is a strong word. [ male announcer ] chocolate just got more irresistible. find the all brown bag and you could win! all multivitamins give me the basics. they claim to be complete. only centrum goes beyond. providing more than just the essential nutrients, so i'm at my best. centrum. always your most complete. uh, i'm in a timeout because apparently riding the dog like it's a small horse is frowned upon in this establishment! luckily though, ya know, i conceal this bad boy underneath my blanket just so i can get on e-trade. check my investment portfolio, research stocks... wait, why are you taking... oh, i see...solitary. just a man and his thoughts. and a smartphone... with an e-trade app. ♪ nobody knows... ♪ [ male announcer ] e-trade. investing unleashed.

>> type of. >> mitt romney's greatsest hits as compiled by the obama campaign and the housing crisis when fraud really hits home. >>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. as i understand it in radio they can't see you, so this is big for me. >>tv and radio talk show host stephanie miller rounds out current's new morning news block. >>it's completely inappropriate for television. >>sharp tongue, quick wit and about all, politically direct. >>politically direct to me means no bs, the real thing, cutting

through the clutter. my show is the most important show in the world. >> the battle for the presidency got hotter. a key struggle for women voters for those who prefer president obama to mitt romney. the president's efforts to raise taxes on the rich. mr. obama and at the whitehouse supported by millionaires backing the buffett rule that would mandate 30% income tax on anyone earning at least half a million dollars a year. the president insisted it wasn't quote simply an issue of redistributing wealth. >> this is not about fairness. this is about growth. this is also about being able make investments we need to succeed and it's about we, as a country, being willing to pay for those investments and closing our deficits. >> former governor romney tried

narrowing the deficit. the president, 19% lead with women voters. >> if i am the next president of the united states, i will go to work to get american women good jobs, rising incomes and growing businesses. [applause.] >> the romney campaign also fought back in its claim that women lost 92% of the jobs that disappeared in the recession demanding a retraction of po. politifax saying it was 92%. the obama campaign has something in mind: posting a web video, mitt romney: memories to last a lifetime. here is the part that focuses on women's issues. >> do i believe the supreme court should overturn row v. wade. >> planned parenthood, we will get rid of that. of course, i support the blount amendment. >> it would let members opt out of birth control if they had moral objections. >> would you have had a problem

with life at conception. >> for more on the 2012 race i am joined by robert reich, professor at uc berkeley and author of the new ebook, "beyond outrage: what has gone wrong with our economy and our democracy and how to fix it" and joe williams, white house reporter with politico. secretary reich, let me begin with you the president is wrapping himself around the buffett rule. but today, instead of talking about it in the context of fairness, he talked about it in the context of growth. is it a growth strategy? and why is it such? >> it is a growth strategy elliott, because, number 1, the only way we will have enough money in this country to invest in education and retraining our workers and, also, upgrading our infrastructure, road bridges aefrnlings we hadneed to be protective and bring down the budget deficit long-term at the same time is if the rich pay their fair share. if we don't do these kinds of

investments, if we don't actually improve our public education system and our infrastructure, our growth is going to suffer as it has been suffering for many years because we have been disinvesting. >> the president is arguing in order to invest for the future we can. we can't be deficit spenders. this is one of the measures to impose but am i right the buffett rule would raise $47,000,000,000 over 10 years, not a huge impact in terms of the revenue figures for the federal government? >> no. you have to get rid of the bush tax cuts. also, ideally, the president should be talking about increasing the taxes on people who are earning, you know, in the top 2 /* 2%, not just millionaires and perhaps a we can't tax. he hasn't gone this far. given people at the top now are bringing in more of the nation's income and wealth than they have in about 90 years, looking at the figures over the last sent

tree, and, also given that -- sent tree, and given that their marginal taxes are lower than they have been in 35 years and on top of that eliot, given that we do need to invest so much and have this big digit deficit in the future, it's simply appropriate to ask them to bear their fair share. i think the buffett rule is an absolute minimum, but we probably ought to raise the bar even higher. >> i am going to come back to you in a few moments about whether or not, by making it so front and center in the debate it makes it not only the minimum but the maximum. i want to turn to you, joe former governor romney clearly opposed to this rule, putting this in the context of being a stealth capital gains tax. whether or not that's the case probably for most of those earning over a million, a lot on the capital gains revenue but politically is mitt romney painting himself into a earthen coulder defending the wealthy, defending what we know is his marginal rate of about 14.9%? >> well, given the fact that this guy is worth many times

what the three of us probably are put together, it almost seems like force of habit for him that these kinds of things tend to come out of his habit to talk about how 34 -- $340,000 really isn't all that much and how this kind of a tax would really soak the job creators. not only is it g.o.p. orthodoxy but it seems to be part of who mitt romney is. this is who he is at his core, somebody who understands the intricacies here and somebody who also, i might add, to professor reich's point, the fact that this is an absolute minimum first step doesn't preclude the fact that if there were sweeping changes in the tax system, it's almost like an arms race. people who are wealthy enough to afford good accountants, good lawyers and find ways around to avoid paying these taxes, it's simply one step of a system overhaul that we need to have done right away. >> i want to come back to a political point which i think sort of made its way into the conversation over the past

couple of days. but public and the swing voters in the middle, 15% who are going to determine the outcome here seem to prefer a conversation about growth to one about fairness. and so is mitt romney perhaps, taking his side for a moment positioning himself so he can say i am about growth. if you tax the wealthy, we know that's onnot going to work. does that argument as a political matter have traction do you think? >> i think it kind of has traction. but i also think that the fairness thing, a lot of people are thinking about it. a lot of people are talking about it. this is where "occupy wall street" came in to play, where it became a political force because people were starting to realize that the system was so unfair, that wealth inequality has spread over the last 10 years. wages were flat. one of the reasons why we have more two-person households going out to work every morning is because the upper incomes and the people who are running the factories and running the job creation engine as the republicans would call it are able to do so much more with less and families need more

income to stay where they were before. i mean professor reich has talked about this ad nauseam. so politically i don't necessarily agree with the points that fairness trumps growth. i think they go hand-in-hand. i don't think it's one or the other. i think that these are arguments that the republicans probably need to start thinking about how they are going to frame their defense of and certainly arguments that the democrats are going to start having to push a little bit harder. >> joe -- >> eliot, i think it's important for democrats, for the president and other democrats, not to fall into the trap letting the public think that there is a trade-off here you have to choose either fairness or growth. i mean i think it's very important to make the case that you cannot really have growth over the long-term unless you have fairness that that trickle-down economics is a fraud. it has been a fraud since it was invented and it was invented. the real way this country grows is from the bottom kind of percolate up through education,

through job training through investments, people, small businesses. you know, it's not the case the rich have got to have extraordinary incentives. mitt romney, a $21 million in 2010, paying 13.9% taxes, you know, you can't run a country that way. >> professor, i think most of the evidence, to the extent it's been studied until you get to 60 or 70% marginal tax rate people do not in fact slow down in terms of their work habit. you are right, there is not in truth a trade-off between growth and fairness. they go hand-in-hand. i want to come back to the question i posed a little bit earlier. are you worried that by making the buffett rule and those over a million dollars, make this the litmus test he will foresake the opportunity in november, december, when some sorts of compromises are going to have to be cut between the congress and the white house, foresake the opportunity to get the other measures you spoke about a few moments ago in repealing other parts of the bush tax cuts, et cetera?

>> there is always the danger, eliot, if the democrats or if obama sets the bar at some level and says, well, this is what we ought to do, the buffett rule is necessary, that then when it comes time to compromise that instead of being a minimum, that becomes the maximum. and you are talking, then not about repealing the bush tax cuts. you are talking, then about how much millionaires ought to be paying. i think the way to avoid that trap is for obama and democrats to really be talking about the buffett rule as a minimum. i mean talking about the necessity of setting an absolute minimum but suggesting that actually, millionaires and billionaires and even people earning $600,800,000 ought to be paying far more. >> joe, i want to come back to you for a moment. governor romney clearly trying to move and use economic arguments as a way to bridge the camera with chasm, i am looking out for your interests. do you think he will beability

overcome the issues about choice access to health care so front and center in the republican primary debate and make it an economic argument once again and close that yawning gab that really would be doom for him in november if he can't do it? >> boy, it's going to be tough. i mean you are looking at six or so months, give or take of mitt romney tacking to the right, involving a lot of the social issues. we had rick santorum. one of the things i think relieves mitt romney about having santorum out of the race is the fact that he no longer has to go there. he can start tacking more towards the center, and it's a great distance. there is a reason why president obama is trending so well with independent and women and that's because of the social issue. a lot of these abortion -- anti-abortion laws promulgating the fight over contraception and the fight over whether contra exception should be paid for in the affordable care act. economically speaking, some issues are economic issues. having a child costs a woman not

only in wages but also in-household spending allowances, having good access to good health care children have to go to the doctor. those are health care issues. those are economic issues that can keep a woman from earning as much money. so certainly there are -- >> professor, jumping in here. >> i want to ask you: you have 405 bills in state legislate temperatures right now attacking reproductive rights sponsored by republicans. romney is not going to be able to duck the republican party on all of this anti-women's campaign. >> professor we will address that in the upcoming segment a couple of moments ago. the so-called war on women. governor romney refutes it exists seems hands-down clear, there is certainly within a peace of the republican party, that war is being waged. professor reich, former u.s. labor secretary, author of the new ebook, "beyond outrage" and joe williams white house reporter with politico great to

have you on the show tonight. thank you for joining us. >> great to be here. thank you. >> they said it. we'll show it. the viewfinder coming up next. look, i don't play 'bout my facial hair. but if i grow this out a little bit i look too much like an english country gent... naaah. a little this way and i feel like i'm from outer space. this and i feel like a viking... [ roars ] not my style, man. [ male announcer ] master your style... even trimming, a close shave and accurate edging... with the new gillette fusion proglide styler. every inch of hair needs to be on point.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ so, this is delicious okay... is this where we're at now we don't care anymore? we just eat whatever tastes good? excuse me? [ man ] like these sweet honey clusters they're awesome so no way they're good for you. but i guess that's okay right? actually there's a half a day's worth of fiber in every ... why stop at cereal? ya know? cancel the gym membership. bring on the pork chops and the hot fudge. fantastic. are you done sweetie? yea [ male announcer ] fiber beyond recognition. fiber one.

arizona >> republicans are trying to convince us the war on women is fictional. >> ron paul or rick santorum? con, he is mitt romney. >> i have a missouri foxtrotter like a quarterhorse, just a much better gait. >> if you want the most bang for your buck, you have to shuffle off. >> why the hell is newt gingrich still in the races. >> he ran not just a shoe-string campaign. i think he ran sort of a half-shoe string campaign. >> score.

>> today's facebook-inspired insta instagram, how do you feel about that merger? >> no idea. i don't know anything about it. sorry. >> anybody who volunteers to pay a higher tax rate god bless them, let them do it, but keep their hands out of our pockets. >> well, it's wonderful to see you, especially you. 0, man. i know. having to listen to a speech. >> we are in great debt because the middle class is addicted to entitlements. just an all-around photogenic guy. >> spend your money on ads and hotel rooms. i would rather spent it on ads.

>> come on. >> all right. my favorite part of the show. actually, i want to create instagram next go around. the foreclosew crisis next on "viewpoint"!

for the energy to keep you going. who wouldn't want to be a part of that? payday. the sweet taste of energy. if you have copd like i do you know how hard it can be to breathe and what that feels like. copd includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. spiriva helps control my copd symptoms by keeping my airways open a full 24 hours. plus, it reduces copd flare-ups. spiriva is the only once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that does both. and it's steroid-free. spiriva does not replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have kidney problems glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these may worsen with spiriva. discuss all medicines you take, even eye drops. stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if your breathing suddenly worsens your throat or tongue swells you get hives, vision changes or eye pain, or problems passing urine. other side effects include dry mouth and constipation.

nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better. does breathing with copd weigh you down? ask your doctor if spiriva can help. >> the story you are about to hear puts a personal face on 2008. mortgages that shouldn't have been taken salesmen who committed fraud and foreclosures that shouldn't have happened the show of sheila ramos, the 58-year-old grandfather good morning who eight years ago took out at mortgage to run at business. but when a car accident made her fall into the abyss, the subprime mortgage crisis. her tale is one of mortgage fraud, an overrun judicial cowardice

cowardice. it has been told by paul keel in his new book, "the great american foreclosure story." thank you. a dramatic story. tell us briefly: how did sheila end up where she did? she went from a hard-working business-starting individual, a grandmother to being the face of the mortgage crisis. >> i heard from a lot of people this is the situation, you know, a snowball effect. there is something wrong, a health be problem or something like that. in her case, a car wreck. she started getting peppered with calls from a mortgage broker. she was a good mark, not much education, had never taken a mortgage out before she moved to florida. she had spent years in alaska and owned her house free and clear. when she got in that pipeline the subprime loan the mortgage servicer, you know made things worse. there were thelee late fees that get piled on. there is this treadmill you

can't get off of. and, you know, i picked her because she -- everything happened to her that i wanted to talk about. >> just to begin with what i think is such a salie in. t point because there is a elect argument. too many people took on mortgages. some cull patienty on the borrowers. in this case, you have somebody who bought her house free and clear starts the bids, used the money to start a business and ran it successfully and then, as you state, fell into the abyss. >> she was getting loans, taking money out of her house in order to keep her head above water and doing the best she could. but when she started getting behind, the mortgage servicer was no help in terms of getting a modification getting her something she could afford to stay in the home even though she had a housing counsellor helping her documenting she had enough income to make some payments. >> so many players, the borrower, the lender, the servicer, the loans are securetized by merrill lynch and big names but describe for us quickly because servers are the

hidden gears chewing up these people. what do the servicers do and why are they essential? they are the ones who deal with people, take the mortgage payments, make the decision whether they are going to give you a modification or going to foreclose. and what's really important and what we show in the piece is that they had very different incentives than the people who own these loans at the other end, who held the risk of, you know, a potential loss and foreclosure. >> stop right there. the incentives are for the servicers not to reform the mortgages here? a critical point. in this pipeline when people were saying: help they had an economic incentive not to help them. >> the way they are paid is a little bit of the fee on each loan. the way they made money was to handle as many loans as possible essentially while dealing with them as little as possible. when you got to this foreclosure, it was a recipe for disaster. >> that's when you had the obama administration come in and add some sweetener there to say this

is a decision that makes sense. you are going to look at it and give people a fair review for modification. >> if there was a moment, in my view, of political cowardice when the obamas administration could have gone to congress and said, let judges permit in a foreclose -- excuse me -- in a bankruptcy context these loans to be modified. what happens then? what should have happened? >> well, obama campaigned on this issue vocally for it. democrats like dick durbin had been pushing it, had no luck with the bush administration. when obama came along and when we were bailing out the financial system, people thought, ah-ha, we will get this passed. but what happened was obama kind of did not give it any vocal support when it counted, when it was before congress and it went down to a narrow defeat in the senate. >> what i have heard is that the treasury department opposed it and the senator turned back at the obama administration and said whose side are you on in the banks or the people?

what would it have meant if the a judge had been able to change the terms of a mortgage. >> you would not have been reliant on your mortgage company, pleading with them. you would have had the option to go to a bankruptcy court. the bankruptcy judge would have had the power to look at what you had and if you had enough to make the loan according to what the house is worth they could have adjusted how much your interest rate was and bring that down. they could have brought down how much your debt was. that would have been a huge thing, particularly in cases like california. >> what could a judge do? somebody who would have waved and balanced each side. on sheila's case who was committing fraud and why? >>. >> the mortgage broker. she lied about his loan application and then when she got into the pipeline, the foreclose pipeline, it didn't make sense. they didn't have the right lender on them. but it didn't prove to be a problem. the judge essentially rubber stamped the foreclose and it went through. >> to come back to the mortgage broker. she was given loans she should not have been given and the mortgage broker, who was going

to be paid for making the loan lied on the application? >> yes. he got $13,000 in fees for handling one subprime loan for a woman who could not afford the loan. when she got it, he misstated her income, lied about the fact that she had not been -- she had been behind. >> that's why she needed the loan. but on the loan he said she was paying. >> here is a good morning starting a business -- a grandmother, where does she live now. >> essentially in a tent en encampment in a rural part of the big island hawaii, where she is originally from. >> paul keel thank you so much. men care more about money. really? the war on women rages on. next.

>> loose lips may sink ships but the nation's $70 million ship that sprung a leak. let's look in the war room. jennifer what's on tap tonight. >> tonight on the war room we will have more, of course, on the trayvon martin case and on

mitt romney's attempt to connect with voters carrying out what you are already covering but i hope you will come back and join me because you and i, both attorneys general will have a conversation at the top of the show. you know there is something screwy when millionaires are telling the government take more. we will have a couple of millionaires onset with us tonight doing just that and clean energy is one thing. creating them, talking about it is. creating those jobs is another. former ohio governor, our former former ted strickland will join me to talk about that in ohio. that's all that and more at the top of the hour. >> excellent. what a line-up. i will be thrilled to join you. >> great. >> honored to be in that line-up. millionaires, don't they call themselves the patriotic millionaires. >> they do. >> more "viewpoint"coming up next. >> thanks. we're keeping it real.

i think its brilliant. >>current tv welcomes two new hosts. news and analysis with a washington perspective from an emmy winning insider. >>i know this stuff and i love it and i try to bring that to the show. >>and humor and politics with a west coast edge. >>politically direct means no bs, cutting through the clutter. >>bill press and stephanie miller, current's new morning news block. weekdays six to noon. >> still to come $700 million for a boat. it had better float. but first, here is my view. so who is waging a war on women?

it depends who you ask. president obama? or governor romney? the gap among independent women in the swing states who will determine this election? a staggering 14% in favor of the president. women clearly the battle ground. here is the amazing thing you probably didn't know. last december, before the republican primary, the margin among independent women was in favor of governor romney over president obama by 5 points. there has been a swing of 19 points, a huge move against governor romney in favor of the president. why is it? because rick santorum focused the republican primary on those social issues, the war on women as it's been called. and it continues. this past week wisconsin repealed an equal pay for equal work law. why do this? when if you are a white woman, you are only pate 77% of white men. if you are an african-american 67%, or a hispanic woman, om

53%. and even when you control for all of the other relevant factors, education length of time in the job, still that huge gap between what men and women are paid. well here is what the sponsor of that bill said about it: money is more important to men. really? sounds kind of inane to me. i am not sure women or men would agree with that argument. and then, what's going on arizona about reproductive rights? again, republicans have passed through the legislature, it will be signed, a bill that says life begins before conception. so you can conduct abortion only for a more limited period of time. now, look, i am not a science whiz. last time i took biology was a long time ago but saying life begins before conception, that i have a hard time understanding. i don't think this bill will survive judicial scrutiny. in another arizona bill, it's designed to keep women as patients from getting information from their own

doctors. a doctor is now going to be given immunity if he fails to tell the woman about information that might persuade her to have an abortion. great. we are trying to create patients who are i ll-informed. these seem like the republicans have a view of women's rights from a different era. what's governor romneyts argument? he says that since women lost jobs during the economic cataclysm, president obama is conducting a war on women. look. forget about the metaphors. i don't care if it's a war or not a war but one thing i believe, the republicans need a different approach to women's rights, one that doesn't bring us back to an earlier century. >> that's my view. so at&t showed corporate caterers how to better collaborate by using a mobile solution in a whole new way. using real-time photo sharing abilities, they can create and maintain high standards from kitchen to table. this technology allows us to collaborate with our drivers to make a better experience for our customers.

[ male announcer ] it's a network of possibilities -- helping you do what you do... even better. ♪ ♪ the newest voice in cable news is on the new news network. >>jennifer granholm joins

current tv. this former two term governor is politically direct.

>> 7 billion for a navy destroyer, 14 billion for an aircraft-carrier 166 million for 1 frugal fighter bomber. these often under stated price tags soar as weapons modernizations costs areshelled out with no guarantee the systems will arrive on time let alone work. the toro combat ship is the latest program fraught with setbacks and spiraling costs, designed to patrol for under water mines on the open seize and along shallow coast lines, ideal for battling iranian vessels or detecting mines. the pentagon, it's a 21st sent tree where navy warfare has been supported by the white house. "new york times" elizabeth miller point out:

>> here to tell us about one of the most tortured ship building programs, "new york times" reporter covering the pentagon. thank you for your time. >> hi, how are you? >> wondeducational background. let me ask you straight out: can this ship do what we are paying for it to do? >> well, we don't know yet. we will see. as you just pointed out the first ship off of the production line is in port in san diego after a major leak in its hull. they are working on it. the second ship is in decent shape but the body of the ship is the equipment that they put on it. this ship has different kinds of modules you can put on it for different missions. it's a mine-hunting module having problems. they are working on it. they say they are adjusting the algorithms and this is why you put a ship in sea trials to test things like this.

>> it's certainly a scary looking vehicle. if i were -- if i were a pirate and i saw this i would run away, too. >> that's not the issue. you can create a scary picture. the thing is if you can't distinguish between the glint of light on top of the ocean and the landmine, what are we paying for here? >> well the navy likes this ship. >> the navy likes every ship. >> right. the white house likes this ship. the pentagon likes this ship. the navy's argument is that they say they have gotten the cost down for the future ships to be about 400 million per ship. as you know, any time you build something new, the first, the first products off of the production line are the most expensive. as you build more ships, more jet fighters, the cost per jet fight or ship comes down. they say they will streamline costs. they also say that this is the right ship for the right time. it's a relatively -- it's a smaller ship. it's a very fast ship, probably the fastest ship in the navy.

it's very maneuverable and the navy needs this kind of a ship to get away to not just be a deep-water -- not just the destroyers. this is a ship that can move quickly in the straight of hormos. when you have iranian speed boats. >> it sounds like we need to be quick to get away. i didn't think the navy was to be there for that. somebody in the navy said this ship could not survive actually in combat because it was vulner vulnerable. is that true as well? >> right. well, the pentagon's top weapons tester had a report the end of last year. this is what they found. this is not expected to be survivable in a hostile combat environlt. that said, no ship is completely, you know, survivable in a hostile combat. an aircraft-carrier taking a c corp he'd 0 is going to have some problems. what the navy says is this ship would never operate alone in

hostile waters like the straight of hormos. it would have a larger ship nearby. >> let's -- your article, which was so powerful and so deeply researched raised for me this question: is thisship symptomatic? unfortunately, you have to tell us, is it symptomatic of a deeper problem in the military where procurement still can't be done until we bring things in on budget where they can fulfill the next we have described for them? >> absolutely. it goes on all the time. it still goes on at the pentagon. this one is so far along, it's going to happen basically. >> in 10 seconds, is anybody willing to stand up and say, just kill this program? >> john mccain has for years and other people in congress have. there is a lot of critics. navy specialists say that but there is nobody in the navy, at the pentagon or the white house saying that right now. >> unfortunately, i think it's a story we have heard so often. the navy and the military want it. we pay for it.