that's horrible. you're such a clown. clown of the day in 18 different ways goes to this gentleman over here, ron gould. thank you for watching and putting up with my cough. i'm trying to stay in here and keep up the fight. >> good evening. i am eliot spiritser. this is viewpoint. mitt romney wins in the latest campaign finance war: bill clinton gets back in line with president obama while jeb gets out of line. politics? the money, the romney campaign hauled in nearly $77 million last month compared to 60 million for the president. mr. obama worked to close that gap with a 2-day west coast trip that started wednesday and included a sold-out lgbt leadership fundraiser in beverly

hills last night. >> i could not be prouder of the work that we have done on behalf of the lgbt community. repealing don't ask/don't tell all of the administration work that's been done by agencies to make sure that folks are fully recognized. >> the president's fundraising drive was expected to raise more than 5 and a half million dollar for his campaign. as for his rival politico ken vogel is reporting the billionair, sheldon adelson may give a million dollars to restore our future a super p.a.c. he was newt gingrich's sugar daddy before his campaign went down in flames. if there was any doubt that jeb bush was not going to serve as romney's his praise for mr. obama's cameducation strategy. >> i don't have to play the game of being 100,000% against

president obama. i have got a long list of things i think he has done wrong. and with civility and respect, i will point those out if i am asked but on the things that i think he's done a good job on, i am not going to just say no. no. >> the republican base must be horrified. just as democrats were when former president clinton told cnbc quote didn't have a problem if the bush tax cuts for the wealthy a contradictory policy. president clinton tried to roll that back today. >> i support a position and i think on the merits, upper income people are going to have to contribute to the long-term debt reduction. >> an anmon non-muss clinton advisor offered this: he's 65 years old. i guess it happens to all of us. the intersection of money and politics and the rest of the day's issues in the 2012 campaign, politico's chief

investigative reporter ken vogel and craig crawford of craig crawford.com and authof " "the politics of life" when i was a kid, i used to listen to monty python all theed time. money makes the world go around does the 60 versus 77, mitt romney pulling in more money than incumbent president, does that instruct us or say anything about who is winning this race? >> i don't think so. in this game at this point, i would call this parity even though though president obama is behind. >> parity or parody. >> napoleon said it's all about the bat allions. i would say they both have enough batallions to keep this at parity. >> the parody will come later in the show. ken, let's go to you. when billionaires line up behind a candidate, usually t the candidate is happy. adelson had been with newt

gingrich. that didn't work out. we haven't from newt recently. i miss him. he was good to talk about. is adelson is this his way of making up to mitt saying, i will be nice to you, also? >> it means a lot, eliot. gone are the days where motivating the small donors and constituent groups like you see president obama doing with the gay and lesbian community is sufficient. in fact, in many ways the traditional funneled raising motivating small donors, et cetera, seems quite these days when all it takes is a handful of billionaires willing to write these huge seven and eight-figure checks. incidently, i can say now that since we reported about adelson's contribution, we have learned he is talking about giving as much as $10 million to the mitt romney super p.a.c. so that right there goes a long way. president obama can raise 5 million, $15 million on this swing and sheldon adelson can

negate that add vantage like that. >> that's really indicative of the new world in which we live where it is, you know, the imperative is on the candidates and their supporters to win over these few handful of folks as opposed to establishing this broad fundraising network that was the time frame of what we saw on 2008. >> you know, when i first read your piece in politico, he upped the ante. i thought that was pretty chief. for a millionaire, that's like giving $10,000. >> he said, i will show that guy, craig. i will put 10 million. i will show him i am not cheap. >> at one point giving gingrich something like $20 million and i thought he said -- do i remember he said as much as a billion? >> no. he said as much as $100 million. >> 100 million. >> when we first reported that adelson had talked to people about giving as much as $20 million to a super p.a.c.

supporting newt gingrich, he personnelally called me to reject that characterization and say he had made no commitment. by the time newt was done and dropped out, he had given more than $20 million. >> unbelievable. >> he and his family had. i don't think there is any limit at this point to what he is willing to give, so deep it his i am netty toward president obama. >> this makes a mockery of any statutory campaign limits. i remember when i was a candidate, you would make phone calls for $100 $5,000 was a major contributor. now, they have to give it to super p.a.c.s, supposedly independent. but my goodness 10 million bucks, who is going to waste his time calling out to real people for 100 bucks? the whole game. >> still a billion, 10 billion. as much as possible. these guys give so much money, it's so obscene that the public finally, cares. i covered politics. we write about campaign finance

all the time. the public really never cares. they used to it. but this will get them not utilities to it. >> ken, do you think will the public care? let's say sheldon adelsons gives $50 million. will the public toss it off as one more piece of evidence that the game is rigged and we have become more cynical? >> i think it would have to be in that ballpark of giving, $50 million or more. it would have to be so obscene it would open people's eyes. this stuff is largely lost on people. it's sort of processed stuff. i talked to people who are advocates for stricter money in politics laws and they are of course aghast by what's going on. some of them can see it might be necessary for there to be a scandal along the lines of watergate where there is actually some sort of quid pro quo that is provable where some donor is getting something from the candidate they helped float in order for there to be the popular will to force the political will to change the

system. >> vice president gore on your show this week talked about a constitutional amendment. >> that's what it's going to take. i think he is right. the only way you will get at a time is what ken is talking about, some sort of scandal or outrage. >> i agree. here are the issues. these super p.a.c.s are unfetterred by any foundry lines. they are supposed to be sort of independent from the candidates, but organize the super p.a.c.s? you have a bunch of these super p.a.c.s. i mean, my theory is karl rove and adelson dorks they have a conference call? how do they do this? is there coordination there. >> karl rove is the coordinate or running things. running the conference calls if you ask me. >> ken, what were you going to jump in and say. >> there is coordination. we have written about this before. there are these meetings that occur, so far they are occurring once a month. the weaver terrace group meeting, so named for the residential street in northwest washington in which karl rove used to live where he had the first of these in his living room. they involve a number of representatives from a number of

these big groups super p.a.c.s, 5 open 1 c 4 non-profit organizations which don't disclose donors. they do the odds whichrations, which groups they are going to play in, how much they are going to play. there is coordination. however, what we detected which was interesting was a little bit of dishe knew among the ranks where karl rove in particular seemed to be disparaging the super p.a.c. supporting mitt romney to which sheldon adelson, we understand is going to contribute as much as $10 million suggesting the money would be better served going to the super p.a.c. and 501 c 4 group that rove unofficially helmed, the crossroads group and when we talked to folks, they suggested this is a little bit about protecting his feifdon and clearly there would be a mitt romney-approved, official or unapproved and it might thenot be rove controlling it. there is competition as much as coordination. >> this huge disparity. numbers, obviously at the super

p.a.c. level, we know a lot of the money, most of the money is going to mitt romney. interesting staltistic here, 43% of barack obama contributors have given let's than $200 for 885. million? >> 10% of romney's contribution has come in, in denominations of less thank 200 that. totalled 9.8 million. you are seeing barack obama has a bigger grassroots foundation for fund raising which was the hallmark of his 2008 campaign. it doesn't matter when you can have somebody on the other side writing a check for 10 million bucks. >> that's admirable. it's wonderful, i suppose. but, in the granted scheme of thing, i don't know that gets them more votes. it impresses the media. i don't know the general public is -- who is going to be impress that. a couple of minutes here let me ask you this question. jeb bush seems to be trying to carve out for himself the statesman role kind of like bill clinton does, riding above the political fray willing to say

kind words about both sides, candidates on either side of the wall. don't view me as a partisan. do you think this is an effort on jeb's part to become the elder statesman of the republican party with what little -- with a little regret he isn't in the race? >> it could position him well for 2010 if mitt romney loses and there is an old field in 2016 to be seen as sort of above it. the other thing, though, is the other side of the coin is, well you know, he is not in the race and you see president clinton and jeb bush being above the race and wifind compelling and admirable, but campaigns find abhorrent because they are not sticking to these very specific zealously-guarded talking points. >> yeah. >> so it sort of just goes to show how narrow the field of accepted conversation becomes. >> yeah. >> in these campaigns.

someone says something just slightly different and it's cause for just all kinds of consternation. >> we talk about wanting stab stability in cam pages. when these guys are civil, the media beats up on them. >> that's not good politics. you are hurting your guy. let's give them some credit when had they try to be civil. encouraging. >> you are so old-fashion. craig, let me ask you this. president apologized. here is my question. when will he have to apologize next for going off on his own. >> the thing about bill clinton, he is off on his own. he loves to talk. he is going to get asked questions. he is going to answer them at link. this is going to happen on and on. >> that's the turf you get with clinton. >> that's why we love him. chief investigative reporter ken glowing, craig crawford blogger. we are heading for a fiscal cliff and there is no gold edge pair ashoot. ahead on viewpoint t

outspoken. i'm a dramatist.

>> the economy is weak so the stock market needs to be boosted. one quarter of a point, the do you mvrp went up 46 points today as a result. here is the kicker: the bank that cut the rate was china's central bank, not ours. maybe -- make no mistake. what happens in china clearly does not stay in china. the china's monetary policy is important for the united states as the fed's is with the pace slowing, the volume of imports china orders from us slows down as well. we pay the price with a sluggish economy. china has been the economic

engine of the world for the past year or more. if they can't get their engine going again, we will be in trouble. so here is hoping that chinese central bank has its own ben bernanke taking care of business. >>do it, for america. 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. >> every season has its.

>> own phrase. this season's fiscal cliff. how real is the threat? while tests before congress, been bernanke warned of the con sequences of such a fall. >> a severe tightening of fiscal policy at the beginning of next year built into current law, the so-called fiscal cliff would, if allowed to occur, pose a significant threat to the recovery. uncertainty could, itself undermine business and. >> the fiscal cliff is the combination of several policies all set to go into motion at the end of the year. among other serious, the expiration of the bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, meaning an income in income tax brackets and sec westration of over $1 trillion in 10 years starting with 86 billion in 2013. the results of last year's

negotiations allowed us to raise the debt ceiling type of what's the impact of a fiscal cliff? a tightening of as much as 5% of our gdp. to put this into context, after the cat glyphic of 2008, gdp dropped 8.9% meaning we could be close to the levels of the great recession. if we hope to avoid going over the cliff, some compromise will need to be cut between november and january 1st. democrats are seeking revenue increases while republicans have been seeking only spending cuts. meanwhile, the only republican even willing to breach the concept of compromise has an interesting last name: bush. >> you are okay as you well know, with $10 of spending cuts for $1 of tax revenue? >> yeah. >> that's a different position than every republican. >> i know. >> candidate in the primary. >> i know. >> jeb bush stood over here? >> i know. >> mitt romney and everybody else over here. >> because we have unsustainable deficits. >> but i haven't heard governor

romney say, i take that position back. i would be prepared to raise taxes. >> no. no. >> we give $10. they give 1. sounds like a pretty bad deal to me, but at least it's talk of compromise. joining me, congressional reporter reporter sahil kapur. thank you for joining us. first of all, what are the odds, or is there any possibility of getting a deal before the november e elections? >> very unlikely. i think the best you are probably going to see before the november e elections are very modest measures to make sure further bad things don't happen like you might see congress avert a hike in student loan interest rates for about 7 million young adults. so, other than that, very unlikely. >> but essentially, what you are saying is that with the battle lines drawn as they are between now and november each party stuck to its orthodoxies where you have grover norquist and the democrats not willing to compromise against -- with

republicans in this posture. between now and november, we just kind of march towards the cliff? >> pretty much. i mean i think everyone is waiting to see what the results of the november e elections are because that's what's going to determine how congress moves forward and really the country moves forward and how we deal with the major economic con traction headed our way versus january. >> now, that being said, all of the folks, the partsans on both side acknowledge if we let these policies, this convergentions go into effect, we are going to be headed for another serious recession. nobody wants that to happen. essentially we are playing one big game of chicken ? >> that's right. >> that's one of the reasons why there have been some talks behind the scenes between key senators, republican and democrat on, you know what do we do about this? the latest economic news, last friday's job numbers they scared everyone in a big way because now, it seems like we are not headed for, you know, a

sustained recovery as we thought we were. we are headed for another slowdown, probably not another recession but at the same time if congress doesn't come through a resolution, we probably would head for it. on the senate side there are more likely more and more realizing some sort of a compromise needs to happen because democrats are completely sick and tired of deficit reduction deals or, you know, doing just spending cuts without any revenue. >> you just alluded -- you wrote about it in your column today. there is a theory out there. i don't want to call it a conspiracy theory. a theory that in a way, the republicans are holding the economy hostage because, let's face it, the worst the economy looks between now and november, the more persuasive mitt romneyts argument is going to be, hey, trust me not the incumbent president. is there any of that on the hill? sort of an emotionalal battle between democrats and republicans? people saying we know you are

tooling the economy. >> i think there is a sense on both sides a weak economy is going to be better. you are seeing democrats more and more come out and accuse republicans of trying to sabotage the economy. on the republican side, though, i think it's more nuanced. i don't think they get together and sit in a back room and say how do we ruin people's lives? i don't think people's minds work that way. i think they are increasingly likely to believe things that aren't true if it's in their partisan incentive to do so. the brand of austerity economics is that they have a perfect storm incentive to do it. their ideological base likes this and at the same time, it doesn't help the economy, and they know that they're probably not going to face the blame for it because voters tend to blame the president. the confluence of events is shaping up such that they support big spending cuts even though very few economists outside the ideological frings thing this is the right thing in

the short-term. >> that explains why they are acting as they are which is why it was more important that the jeb bush break with grover norquist who orchestrated the anthesis, for jeb bush for him to say, yes, we should consider and accept revenue increases changes the dynamic a certain extent and creates leeway for mitt romney down the road should he be the one negotiating. >> right. i think if mitt romney is elected president, there is no doubt he will cut a deal with democrats and compromise a little bit. republicans are, you know, opposed to compromising right now is that they want to keep their base riled up, keep the conservatives energized and once that's over and once it's in their hands to make sure that. and it takes place, republicans, you will see republicans far more likely to compromise.

you will see it from the top down if it's a mitt romney's presidency and republican leaders. >> i am going to put you on the spot. given the near certainty at some point there is a deal that is cut, what will the ratio be between revenue and spending cuts? will it be, it won't be the 10 to 1 jeb bush talks to? or the 6 to 4 the democrats would like to see. >> if you see anything between now and november, it will be more like 10 to 1 than anything else. i wouldn't count on that. i wouldn't count on any major deal happening between now and november because the republicans thing if they win the presidency and if they, you know, expand the majority, especially in the senate, you know, expand their seats, sorry, in the senate, which they are looking to take back the majority, they will have far stronger hand and they will get more of what they want. i wouldn't expect much to happen before the election. after the election, you will see something action tremely likely to happen just because of the clam clamitty. >> now the sound of feet toward

lemmings marching toward the cliff. sahil kapur, thank you for your insights tonight. >> thank you. >> david letterman hacked into mitt romneyts inbox. the view finder is next.

>> still to come: is there a solution for syria but first, boston mayor has to brush up on his celtics. meta world piece, when it doesn't fit anywhere else, we put it in the viewfinder. >> subject line to mitt romney's e-mail, here we go, number 10, meet other attractive mitts in your area. [speaking in foreign languages ] >> don't pee on him. i meant you on him. >> number 7, confirming your 2

quote:30, 5:30 and 9:00 o'clock haircuts. >> a lot happens. let me just tell you. kg -- hondo is a good inspiration. hondo drives the team. >> i used to be called something else. i am not a guy but i know the weather is here. right now, it looks like it's 16 degrees in kaluth. it looks like it's cool place to ride dirt bikes. hopefully i can get over there one day. >> 75 in tampa, about the same for san antonio. >> we are going to tampa this summer. >> and charlotte. >> 7 mind is going to be the high in raleigh. >> north carolina shall summer too. >> exactly. >> president clinton, i know you know is somewhat of a meg la maniac. he wants to think high of himself. he can boast he is the only democrat to be elected to two terms since franklin delanor

roosevelt. >> okay. are you okay? are you okay? >> his tooth came out when he fell. >> number 4, the marie osmond deal attracted cable news celebrities like neil kuboto and brett bare, every pundit. >> that's where my cow wins. syria is burning. does the u.s. lead, follow or get out of the way? ahead on viewpoint. "the gavin newsom show" with special guest: hollywood icon oliver stone. >> i'm not an activist, i'm outspoken. i'm a dramatist.

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. ♪ ♪

>> all about civil war that could inflame the middle east seems closer by the day. white house critics insist the white house should do more from the country facing attacks. the latest atrocity activist opposed to his regime say they unleashed sectarian militias on the tiny farming town. as many as 78 civilians, mostly women and children were reportedly massacred. those reports and these pictures have not yet been confirmed. u.n. observers were first stopped by syrian security forces and attacked with small arms fire. in istanbul hillary clinton condemned the massacre and demanded an end to the regime. >> the regime sponsored violence is unconscionable. assad has doubled down and syria

will not, cannot be peaceful, stabilizing or certainly democratic until assad goes. >> i am joined by marc beginsburg former u.s. ambassador to morocco to president carter and now senior vice president at apco international. ambassador, thank you for joining us. two weeks ago, we spoke on this very issue. at the time, you said it would get get worse if there not a firmer more res lute u.s. response. there has been no such response. it is getting worse. what is wrong with our foreign policy that we can't do something here? >> the foreign policy is uncreative unimaginative and also based upon breaking whatever may be the temptation of anyone to lure the administration into taking more effective action against the syrian atrocities that are being committed. governor, the bottom line is that this administration is more comfortable with no, we can't, instead of, yes, we can. >> now they would look at libya

and say we led from behind sort of at first, they were knocked for that. then they would say it worked. are they trying to lead from behind in syria? is that model not effective? what do we need to do? who should take the lead now? >> i am confident that the secretary's statement clearly reflected a personal view. the problem in this administration is that they are acting as if this is purely al diplomatic crisis and not a confrontation between an outcast, and a outlaw regime killing it's. >> people and a failed united nation's secured counsel that appears inept and basically being kicked in the pants by a russian government that on the one hand is faining support a plan but pouring arms into the asad regime to continue massacres. >> we hid behind kofi anon clearly that has been nothing more than a shar aid a cover.

to continue a rain of terror. ve toting any concerted u.n. action or cover for u.s. action through the u.n. why don't we break with the u.n. and say we will act unilaterally or with our european allies? >> why is it the fact that it takes a massacre when we know that every day, there are tens of thousands of syrians who are being shelled, denied humanitarian relief? the arab crescent society, the so-called red cross of the arab world should be provided support by allied countries to drop humanitarian relief into the country to stop the killing and wounded from being starved to death by this regime. it's not just the massacres catching the attention. it's the lack of creativity on the part of the obama

administration for even not doing what i would call the humanitarian basic necessities. what are the russians going to do? stop the red crescent society from doing what is necessary? is it going to fire on u.n. planes that are dropping relief supplies? why are we sitting back and not doing more to challenge the russians to put up or shut up? >> you have written persuasively about this setting out a series of modlated steps that could be taken between nothing, which is essentially what we are doing now, or pure rhetoric which is meaningless and actual military intervention which is a step you have not recommended. you are saying there is a cassism between those two points along the spectrum including everything from bringing the criminal indictment of the international court of justice. explain why that would help in terms of the conversation in the international community. >> listen. dealey jitmizing this regime bringing the charges before the international criminal court, to basically warn these people who are party to these murders that are taking place that they are

going to be personally held accountable, why is it by the way, that the so-called communications, non-lethal support that the administration promised to provide the syrian opposition is somehow bottled up in a bureaucracy of, well, we are not sure who we are supposed to be giving this equipment to mentality? i have never seen an administration that has been more reluctant to essentially take what they consider to be a feckless understandable feckless opposition and, in effect, drumon them into shape in order to provide the assistance that is necessary. it's not our responsibility to fight their war. but we are certainly coming up with a lot of excuses why we can't even get into the ring with them to provide them the water they need or the sus 10 answer they need to engage in this fight. >> you also have said in addition to providing that sort of sus 10 answer in communication support, economic sanctions. you have said with great persuasiveness that we have not

imposed upon the syrian recommendregime the degree of economic sanctions we have imposed upon ran. why not? >> it's anyone's guess. why isn't the office of foreign assets controlling the. and this administration ingenious in developing sanctions against the iranian regime take a page out of their own playbook and slap the rest of the sanctions on the syrian regime regime? i don't get it. i don't understand. certainly all of us who are in washington sitting there scratching our head. the only thing any of us can come up with is that the political operatives of this white house are so determined to avoid slipping into a conflict in syria that they are avoiding taking whatever actions they may think may lead to that which may not lead to that at all. >> you know, one of the reasons you refer to the dynamics of the politics of it it is an unfortunate reality only about a third of the american public

this is point wants it t when the president stands up and does something, suddenly the public jumps behind them. he has to explain why and then the public would be forced behind him instead of if he let's the law sit there without the explanation. the public will oppose intervention. again, an example where he needs to provide the leadership on this area in general. finally where will this next show up? lebanon the next nation which will exploitde where the aidating out of the violence will have a directly impact upon our foreign policy? >> well, we are already seeing that. we are already seeing that there has been a veritable number of attacks that have occurred in the cities of tripoli and beirut and south lebanon between so-called supporters of the asad regime and so there is that sectarian quality and, certainly, look, i want to make sure, eliot, you understand i am not advocating military boots on the ground. i am probably as familiar as anyone with the dangers involved

here. but we need to bring containness. the less that we do to contain it, the more likely that it's going to explode across the region. that's what i am concerned about. we are going to keep waking up to these atrocities, only going to feed more vengeance and violence. if we don't do more to stop it and at least to put our stamp on the ground to try to do what we can. >> two weekends ago, we spoke to you. unfortunately your prediction has been borne out all too accurately about increased mayhem, violence and risk. i hope that what you are portending for the future does not occur, but i am afraid it will, former u.s. ambassador to morocco marc ginsburgburg, thank you for tour time tonight. >> it good to be with you. >> making sure men and women get the same pay for the same work. how can republicans not be in favor of that? more viewpoint coming up. jennifer granholm, is politically direct on current tv >> what should women be doing? >> electing women to office.

our conversation is with you the viewer because we're independent. >>here's how you can connect with "viewpoint with eliot spitzer." >>questions, of course, need to be answered. >>we will not settle for the easy answers. >> let's go out west and check with jennifer gran home. what's on the show tonight. >> we will take he will the audacity of governor rick scott and his defiance of the justice department with bill mccallum and ion san show. the michigan house through another grenade in the war on women. they passed in a committee what would be the most restrictive anti-choice bill in america. we will get the latest from planned parenthood on that. then i will dive into politics

with our ol' pal, former pennsylvania governor ed randall. >> more viewpoint coming up. going to watch your show tonight. >>now let's get some real news. (vo) first, news and analysis with a washington perspective from an emmy winning insider. >>you couldn't say it any more powerfully than that. >> current tv, on the roll. (vo)followed by humor and politics with a west coast edge. >>ah, thank you. >>it really is incredible. (vo)bill press and stephanie miller, current's morning news block. weekdays six to noon. >>(narrator) gavin newsom, lieutenant governor of california, and former mayor of san francisco is on current tv. >>every night on cable news networks everyone's focusing on what's wrong. i want this show to move past that. i love creative people, and with all the vexing problems we have we 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. friday at 11 eastern/8 pacific. only on current tv. >> women get paid only $0.77 for every dollar a man does on average according to the white house. that was true before last tuesday and true now after senate republicans knocked down a bill that could have changed that. the paycheck fairness act was designed to make employers more accountable and got 52 votes in the senate but unfortunately 60 is the new 51. the bill needed 60 to get passed the filibuster. once again, republicans won with an obstruction instead of a majority or even an argument. >> that's what makes this even more frustrating. the reasons opponents give for quashing this bill range from glib to non-existent. not a single republican spoke about it on the senate floor and only one g.o.p. senator tried debating it tuesday. instead for giving clear reasons

on the record, republicans just said no. and that was it. when they are asked about it now and when they don't change the subject, con sebtive leaders say the bill would have caused more litigation. the law would let workers sue for punitive damages they found huge pay scale differences between men and women. would that cause lawsuits? yes. and it should. we get more suits whenever we hold people accountable for bad behavior even though it's been turned into a dirty word, litigation protection us from injustice enforcing everything from trademark infringement to personal injury. the civil rights laws of the 1960s created lawsuits. they also created equity, fairness and a nation we can believe in. so the mere threat of a suit is no rationale to kill this bill. nonetheless, that's the main explanation republicans are offering us. they should go back and pass this law or give us the real reasons why they won't. >> that's my view.

environment all of these claims are resolved as part of the collective bargaining agreement. there are certain read deems the players are begin as part of this collective bargaining agreement and all of that preempts any kind of state law claims they might have, any of these tort claims they may have. this is an argument the league has used for years and years and has been successful. there was a lawsuit brought by corey stringer's estate, a member of the minnesota vikings. his family filed a wrongful death claim and the league moved to dismissed dismiss and they won. the court said like in all areas when you have this federal

regime of collect i have bargaining, that is going to remove the ability of these employees, these players to bring state law claims that are related to the rights that they are afforded. >> i hear you. i am a lawyer, too. you are talking like a lawyer. it sounds good. give me simple justice here they are concealing this. it brings me back to my days when i was attorney general and we sued the tobacco companies. guys, you can't lie about stuff you know is going to kill me. you can't lie if you know when i tackle somebody, i am doing damage to myself and make up as you said. you can't make up this stuff and propagate bad evidence. if they were lying would the collect of any bargaining agreement create some immunity for them. >> they would in theory. you are making a fraud claim there that you had information, you lied about it. that textbook fraud and that's the kind of textbook claim that would be pre-empted by the cba. the players may argue that the pre-emption shouldn't apply.

the league might use the argument. it's potsible the court would say there is too much going on here. there are periods where players weren't covered. so it might go forward with the fraud, with the negative. we might get discovery to see whether or not the league acted like the tobacco companies and hid this information from the players. >> if they withheld it lied, submerged, got rid of bad evidence the way tobacco companies did can i think there will be an awful big price to be paid by the nfl. how will they have to change the game is? is there a concern on the part of the owners who know the big hits make it into the highlight reels, if they make the game too safe, they will loose what's exciting about it? how do they balance that. >> let's get the information out there, find out what the risks are: i don't think anyone claims that the league should be liable because they have put together a violent game. i think that's what fans celebrate. >> that's what players celebrate, why they have these billion dollar telephone

contracts. there has to be some limits. it's an inherently dangerous game but we can't enhance the inherent risk. the league will have to figure out how we identify these con kirks how we treat them and claire for the players in the long-term. we have started and seen the league do that. they put a billion dollars aside. for long time care of players. those are big changes. bigger changes will come with youth football. head injuries to kids when they are 10, 11 be, 12, 13. by the time they get to the nfl it might be too late. the real changes will happen at the younger ages. >> when you see proceed football players saying they don't let their kids play peewee football you know this is changing the role. every kids wants to play but when they say we are not going to let our kids play something is changing. it raises the question: how far have we gone since the days of the roman