>> eliot: some people think it is the single most important reason that nothing is getting done in washington. it's not a person. or an organization. it's the filibuster. created in 1806 by mistake it now permits senators from 21 states representing only 11% of the population to block any bill. but fortunately some people are looking to change that. on monday, common cause a civic wash dog organization along with four members of the house filed a lawsuit asking a federal court to declare the filibuster unconstitutional. joining me now is the president and ceo of common cause from pennsylvania bob edgar. congressman. thank you for joining us tonight. >> it's great to be with you eliot. >> eliot: i'm one of those who thinks that is against democracy, but explain to me where it's constitutional. >> it never was in the constitution. it was insented by accident by aaron burr, an historic figure.

then three days after aaron bur, created it, it was called the filibuster and used more often in history to protect segregation and lunching laws than any productive purpose. only in the last few years has it been used as a tactic or tool of conservative minority to have have, in fact, have a veto over legislation they didn't like. we saw it with the disclosed legislation. it passed the house. it was ready to go to the president for signature. it got 59 votes in the united states senate but failed. common cause believes that the filibuster is not only unconstitutional, but the filibuster has add to the partisanship that we see in washington. we filed in the federal courts. while the constitution does give the senate and the house the right to set their own rules, we have pointed out in our

litigation that points in history where the courts have said, yes, you have a right to make your own rules and to live by them, but they can't be unconstitutional. >> eliot: now look, as i said, and i've said it many times in the show i'm sympathetic to the notion that the filibuster has been overused abused, i would like to eliminate it and see pure majority rule in the house and the senate. the constitution does permit and require were majority votes for certain votes like overriding the president's veto, impeachment, situations like that. the constitution recognizes some instance where is the super majority is required. do you go from there and then it says do you therefore say it's implying that in our instances there isn't and can't be an obligation for super majority? >> well, our researchers and went out and read the federallest papers, english common law.

there is no other democracy that has a rule where one part of the legislative body has veto power over all the legislation. and our founding fathers were pretty bright. they put six instances into the constitution for a super majority vote. you can't impeach the president without a super majority. you can't bring a treaty without a super majority. you can't change the constitution without a super majority. if the senate wants a super majority vote then they should go through the process of amending the constitution and add this issue or that issue to their rules. but if you get down and follow what jefferson madison and others of our founder fathers intended, they said these issues should have a super majority. they intended all other issues to have a simple majority of the house. with respect to the minority. and a super majority in the senate with respect to the minority. and the president is the one who

could veto and even there, there is a super majority to veto the president. >> eliot: i think both of us know that courts are hesitant to intervene in the rules that dictate of how a co-equal branch of government operates. putting aside the likelihood of success, the senate could amend it's own rules. it could have done so in the first week of 2011 when the rules are subject to veto. was that a missed opportunity and can they do so again in the future, and will that happen when the opportunity arises? >> just last week harry reid took the floor to apologize for his actions in january of 2011. a group of senators including tom udall from new mexico, tom hark enfrom iowa, and several others, recognize there is one point in the legislative year at the beginning of the congress

where an extraordinary procedure can take place. when that extraordinary procedure takes place you can amend the rules with a simple majority. on all other legislative days it takes a super majority even to correct the flaws of the filibuster. we're hoping that the pressure that we're building with our federal lawsuit and with the support of not only some of the members of the senate who know the filibuster has been destructive, but also harry reid's comments last week. we think we can build momentum. there is a bill that senator hearken introduced who said, let's keep it at 60 votes. but three days later make it 57. three days later, make it 54, and then eventually get to a majority vote. there are many changes that could happen. i would also like to see us go back to a talking filibuster like we saw in the movie "mr. smith goes to washington."

in 1939 when jimmy stewart did that movie there were zero filibusters. in the last three years there were 80 filibusters and in the language congress there were 140 filibusters. >> eliot: i wish you the best of success in the litigation and to get the congress and senate to form its own rules even before you have to go through the course of litigation. this is the single most process issue on the capitol hill right now. former congressman bob edgar thank you for some of your time tonight. >> thank you eliot. >> eliot: later on, i interview chris christie proves he can't do anything except be governor or vice president. the few finder is next. tequila lime tacos. [ man ] delicious! [ male announcer ] it's festival of shrimp!

for $12.99 try any two shrimp creations like new barbeque glazed shrimp. offer ends soon. we're servers at red lobster. and we sea food differently. etch-a-sketch candidate, an image where romney is anti gas.

and who doesn't want 50% more cash? ugh, the baby. huh! and then the baby bear said "i want 50% more cash in my bed!" phhht! 50% more cash is good ri... what's that. ♪ ♪ you can spell. [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card. the card for people who want 50% more cash. what's in your wallet? ha ha. ♪ ♪ 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. ♪ >> eliot: coming up, our exclusive interview with

vanguard's christof putzel and the follow up to his documentary "american jihadi." but first mitt romney gets auto tuned. cory booker gets on chris christie's nerve. and a 12-year-old girl shows she understand how the banking system works more than others do. when it doesn't fit we put it in the view finder. >> mayor, thank you for coming. we have a fire, and yes a little girl has lost her cat in a tree. and i got this. >> booker. >> governor, stand back! i got this. i got this. >> booker. >> hey gov gov sit tight. i got this. >> booker. >> mitt romney led this gang. >> what, what kind of gang would mitt romney lead? we are are the argyles. >> it's the ri double twizzle.

[singing] >> rush limbaugh big fatty boy rush limbaugh. [laughter] fatso blow-hard rush limbaugh. nobody loves a traditional marriage more than rush limbaugh. he has had four of them. [singing] >> economics is too complex. too tough. people can't wrap their brain around it. they want the economy to be better. but how you get from "a" to "b," that's the complex stuff you don't want to talk about. let's talk about that gay thing again. >> it's obvious to me, a 12-year-old canadian, we we are being robbed by the banking system. what will we do to stop this crime?

>> that's boring stuff. [singing] >> sir, with all due respect i know you need a-- >> excuse me. i got this. >> christie. >> eliot: i love the rappin' romney. that could be his campaign theme son. a kid from alabama wages jihad. now the jihad wage against him as well. and he has nowhere to go. that's the focus. we want to focus on solutions and ways of bringing people together. that's the only way we're going to solve the world's great vexing problems.

>> eliot: how did omar hammami a kid raised in alabama, surrounded by mcdonald's and

chick-fil-as become an islamic terrorist. that was explored in the van good document "american jihadi" from two years ago. there is an update on the story. joining us now with this current exclusive, christof putzel. >> hi, eliot. you know, it's a very bizarre twist in this tail that current has been covering for the past two years. omar hammami left his home in alabama quite a while ago. several years ago. headed off to somalia to help wage global jihad. he grossed a group that is referred to as the al-qaida of africa. he has been fighting on behalf of them ever since. he has been indicted by the fbi--he's wanted by the fbi.

he has been indicted on charges relateed to terrorism and right now the big twist in this whole story is that it looks like his own group may have turned on him. he posted a video on youtube claiming that he thought his life was in danger, not necessarily just by people that want to kill him on the forces that he has been fighting, but his own people. he just recently reached out to me to make contact saying he's ready to finally tell his story. >> eliot: now, you have dealt with him more than most, obviously. is he just a twisted sick mind? he turns on the united states, now even the jihad disdists have thrown him out. this is a sick individual. what has taken him through this tortured path intellectually. >> one of the things anyone who

knew omar before he went at off to somalia. this was not a kid who you would think that he would go off and do this. he was president of his class in high school. he was very popular. he was really the all-american kid. so--that's what has been very weird about this entire thing for people. he did not seem like the kind of person who would go and do something like this or anyone refer to as someone who is psycho or anything like that. he's a man of very strong conviction. he has reached out to me because he saw current's report we did on him two years ago, and wants wants--wants to--set the record straight and tell the story more about how he got into this situation. frankly, through our communication so far, i think he's still trying to figure that out. >> eliot: you have been in touch with his family. his family, i presume, had feared that he was dead. what has been the reaction on part of his family in alabama

been, and do they have understanding of what has taken him through this twisted path that he has followed? >> yes, i sat down with his parents this morning and confirmed that he is, in fact, alive. they were incredibly reassured of because there have been rumors that he had been killed. you know, they are parents. they love him. they don't exactly know what happened, and where he--how this happened. they're still struggling to understand, as you could imagine. it's incredibly difficult for them. they live here in the bible belt. they love america. they love everything that america stands for, but they also love their son. you can imagine the emotional turmoil they are going through with all of this. >> eliot: we'll have some of that fascinating interview tomorrow night on this show. have you heard why or gotten any explanation why his own terrorist jihaddists have turned

against him? has he explained to you in any of the communications why he has separated intellectually emotionally from them, and why he fears that they as well will try to kill him? >> it's all been pretty vague to be honest. the group is weakening at the moment. they've been able to control mogadishu. in the last few months they have been driven out. the group is fracturing. when that happens with these types of groups there becomes a power struggle. and it's not exactly clear who is in charge, who is not, but he's on the outs. he's reaching out now to the west. for the first time. >> eliot: has he indicated that perhaps he wants to come back and that he's willing to renounce his pursuit of terrorism to come back to the united states,s and provide information that would be useful in eliminateing terror against

us? >> i have asked him that very question point blankly, and he has been very clear about the fact that he has absolutely no plans to come back to the united states to surrender. he wants to stick this out. however it ends. whether that means he dies a martyr or he's killed by his own people. he believed that he is fighting for a just cause and will do that to the end. >> eliot: the fact that the other jihaddists does not turn on him, does not mean that he has renounced his own dedication to terrorism as a path? >> that's correct. >> eliot: okay, and presumably he is therefore fearful every time he hears a drone overhead, he knows he may be the target? >> you know, it's very interesting. he's actually talked about seeing drones overhead. he has written about it in his biography that he posted online. it's an incredible memoir that came out today. it's very, very descriptive.

it gives an inside look at one of these groups that frankly we know very little about, their inner workings. it's quite astonished. i don't think he has any plans to surrender. i don't think that he has any plans to surrender to them. but i think that he is desperate to say something and get his message out there, whatever that is. to be perfectly honest with our back-and-forth exchange i'm still trying to figure it out. >> eliot: this is an individual who has gone across political spectrums at warp speed. how does the united states government view him right now? is he wanted such that he would be on a lest of individuals who would be targeted via drones? is he someone that we've sent covert ops to arrest? how does the government view him?

>> all we know is that he has been indicted for aiding and abetting a terrorist organization, and that he is wanted by the fbi. as far as sending drones for him. he has written about seeing drones above him. he has written a hip-hop song that he released online taunting the american drones to come and try to get him. and he doesn't--he doesn't seem to be scared by that at all. he doesn't seem to be scared at all. but he's clearly--he's in a very confused state at the moment. i think he's trying to figure it out. he doesn't know what to do. >> eliot: i have not red his memoir that he posted online today. it sounds to me the words in there would not only corroborate but would be fundamental proof that he has aided and abetted terrorist organizations. he has not contested the charges the united states government has brought against him and he is in essence a terrorist.

>> yes, he hasn't. throughout our exchanges there are things that he does not feel comfortable talking about, and he explains why. the fascinating thing about this, eliot, in my exchanges with him and how the memoir is written, you get the fact that this is really an american. like, this is a kid--he's an american in every way and the way that we communicate the way he writes--call it adventurous naive, but there is nothing-- nothing--it's also very well written. his communications with me do feel like i'm talking to a peer. that is what is so different about all this, and so fascinating. and it will offer a very interesting window for us into a group like this. >> eliot: and into the mind of someone who is clearly troubled as a terrorist and is trying to grapple and some how send some message out there that makes no sense to most of us. christof putzel, thank you for your remarkable reporting on this story. >> thank you eliot. >> eliot: we'll have more on

this story tomorrow night including the exclusive interview that christof conducted with the family of omar hammami. more ahead. easy answers. [ train whistle blows ] [ ball hitting paddle ] [ orbit girl ] don't let food hang around. yeah! [ orbit trumpet ] clean it up with orbit! [ orbit glint ] fabulous! for a good clean feeling. ♪ eat, drink, chew orbit! ♪

♪ ♪ okay, so who ordered the cereal that can help lower cholesterol and who ordered the yummy cereal? yummy. that's yours. lower cholesterol. lower cholesterol. i'm yummy. lower cholesterol. i got that wrong didn't i? [ male announcer ] want great taste? honey nut cheerios. want whole grain oats that can help lower cholesterol? honey nut cheerios. it's a win win. good? [ crunching, sipping ] be happy. be healthy. can i try yours? battle speech right? may i? [ horse neighs ] for too long, people have settled for single miles. with the capital one venture card you'll earn double miles on every purchase, every day! [ visigoths cheer ] hawaii, here we come. [ alec ] so sign up today for a venture card at capitalone.com. and start earning double. [ all ] double miles! [ brays ] what's in your wallet? can you play games on that? not on the runway. no.

[ 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! >> eliot: suing jp morgan chase to no one's surprise. they say the bank has not been truthful. we all knew that. and in one way it has. but first we'll head west and check in with jennifer granholm, governor, what is going on in the war room.tonight. >> we have a different angle on the showdown. i have got chris van holland to try to explain what it's like to negotiate with the tea party fanatics and what it's like to run against the tea party.

we'll look at the newest, hottest senate races in the battle to get 60 votes. that's the indiana senate rate with joe donnelly. we'll be throwing some uppercuts and jabs and right hooks at the tea party. >> eliot: you look like you've been inside the ring practicing that. >> i hope you don't see my black eyes. >> eliot: you know the republicans are going farther and farther right in the senate primaries. that will help the democrats hold on to the senate--from your mouth to god's ears. >> eliot: more "viewpoint" coming up. i'll be watching your show. thank you, jennifer. need creative thinking. >>(narrator) with interviews with notables from silicon valley, hollywood, and beyond. >>at the end of the day this show's simple. it's about ideas. ideas are the best politics. ideas can bring us together. >>(narrator) the gavin newsom show. premiers friday at 11 eastern/ 8 pacific. only on current tv.

if you have an opinion, you better back it up. >>eliot spitzer takes on politics. >>science and republicans do not mix. >>now it's your turn at the only online forum with a direct line to eliot spitzer. >>join the debate now. >> eliot: a number of smart friend of mine are asking why we care so much if jp morgan chase lost $2 billion. after all, the bank can absorb it. but just because you survive a heart attack does not mean you don't care about what caused it. you should do more to stop the disease further on. the doctors at jp morgan chase are trying to give us the wrong diagnosis. in a letter to shareholders just a couple of days ago, ceo jamie

dimon said it will be harder for mep banks to compete. what makes it hard for compete is a dumb $2 billion bet that would not have been made if proper rules had been put in place. many are not happy about this, and they've sued. jp morgan chase said this was just a hedge gone bad but all the evidence points to something very different. these look like the same risky bets that caused so much trouble for other banks only a couple of years ago. if these losses came from a cautious investment unit trying to hedge against risk, how did that same unit end up contributing $5 billion to the banks' profits in one year? that was 25% of jp morgan chase's profits in 2010. this was no hedge. so instead of letting jamie

dimon repeat his misdiagnosis we need a clear volcker rule to outline when and where these bets with occur. other words the banks may not survive the next heart attack. that's my view. i did not want to think about that. relax, relax, relax. look at me, look at me. three words, dad -- e-trade financial consultants. so i can just go talk to 'em? just walk right in and talk to 'em. dude those guys are pros. they'll hook you up with a solid plan. they'll -- wa-- wa-- wait a minute. bobby? bobby! what are you doing, man? i'm speed dating! [ male announcer ] get investing advice for your family at e-trade.

>> eliot: it began as an authorizeed biography with the author who viewed a mentor to the subject. it ended up stirring a hornets nest of controversy when the author brought up what appeared to be doubts that that the ben bradlee felt.

>> "yours in truth: a personal portrait of ben bradlee"," by jeff himmelman. thanks for joining us tonight. >> i'm happy to be here. >> eliot: you did not anticipate this. you wrote a book that you thought was in a way a lauditory book, but look what you stepped into. >> i thought watergate would be interesting to people, but the water storm that it generated i wasn't expecting it. >> eliot: just so we understand what the controversy circles around, one, the claim that woodward and bernstein did speak to a grand jury, something that had been ambiguous and second, the notion that ben bradlee, who is a demigod in washington circles wasn't 1,000 convinced about certain aspects of the way the story was reported. is that right? are those the centerpieces of this? >> that's correct. the grand juror, it's not a claim, it's a fact.

they said they did speak to a grand juror. that's the larger piece of this. the interesting historical piece. but what has caused the firestorm more was the stuff about ben's doubts about the hollywood portrayal of deep throat. in the reportings of of the "washington post" but its doubt about of the how old story of the executive editor of the post. he was responsible about what went in the paper. he said you cannot hold me to the film version of this. >> eliot: just so it's clear none of it goes to the facts pertaining to the watergate break, the cover up and any of the substances that was historically reported in the newspaper? >> that's correct. >> eliot: at that level i wonder why has there been such a strong visceral response to what you have reported? >> i think the answer to is that

we're in a stage in current media where print media is struggling, and watergate is the founding story of print media and people are protective of it. that's an understandable phenomena. but 40 years has past passed, and its time to be candid. these are human beings, and my book shows really show and one of the things about doing the research, these were not perfect people and we're not perfect people. these people have become myths, and deservedly so, they were heroic. but they were people. they made choices and compromise compromises and situations and for whatever reason it's become a hot-button issue. >> eliot: you stepped on superman's cape. that isn't something that people appreciate, and they don't enjoy it. is that part of what is happening here? >> it depends on who you're calling superman. ben bradlee is the superman of

the book. in a lot of ways this adds a complexity to him and who he was, and brings you the challenges of being an executive editor of a newspaper in 1972, which none of us can fathom given the age we live in. >> eliot: you were in the tent. you lived with woodward. were his research assistant. you were a confidant part of the family. is there an element here? people don't like it when you turn against your own family. >> i think you're describing the reaction accurately. your characterization of what i've done in the book is accurate in the sense that i haven't turned against anybody. i think that whole characterization of me is a misdirection from the truth of what i reported. i feel like i've been combating that narrative for a couple of weeks now. if you read the book you'll see that it's very plain, very simple and very unbiased.

all of these narratives have been loaded on me. i understand why. that's what people want to talk about. but i don't agree with that portion. >> eliot: that's a fair point. i have read excerpts. that is the narrative that has been pushed into the media. >> right. >> eliot: tell us how you feel about ben bradlee. do you still view him as someone one would want to emulate in terms of the journalistic world? >> ben bradlee without any question. i love that man. i'm unequivocal about it. if you read the book anyone who reads the book will see what a loving portrait it is of him. i was an inspirational figure to me. working on this book was one of the true highlights of my life. he's a remarkable man. that comes through in the book very clearly but you haven't heard that in the coverage of him or me in the last couple of weeks, and i'm hoping to change that. >> eliot: is there an irony here that the individuals ben bradlee and woodward and bernstein who

were so instrumental in showing the flaws of someone else when the magnifying glass is turned against them, even these tiny little fissures has invoked this reaction? >> yes, when the lens is turned around people are more uncomfortable. the last two weeks as borne that out to a false. >> eliot: at one level its easier to be on this side asking the questions and not answering. you don't look at the other side, but you clearly prefer to be on this side. >> the research of the book was fascinating, and there is so much in the book that is not about this stuff. i hope people check it out because it has so much more about ben bradlee and his journalistic principles which in this day and age are i have relevant. >> eliot: jeff himmelman "yours