[ ♪ music ♪ ] >> eliot: good evening i'm eliot spitzer and this is "viewpoint." they didn't lay a glove on this matter him. they might well is the him an invitation to their next fundraiser. they had jamie dimon in their grasp to supposedly learn how the biggest bank lost $4 billion or $5 billion, but it didn't get much more than a smile, a quick response and a glib apology. >> we let a lot of people down and we are very sorry for it.

>> eliot: thanks jamie that means a whole lot. the committee didn't learn much about how the loss took place or how a supposed hands-on ceo like dimon lost so much. dimon insisted he had been misled when he called reports of a big lost a tempest in a tea pot last april. >> when i made a statement i was dead wrong. i had called inacio, and i spoke to risk officers, and i was assured and i have a right to rely on them that they thought this was a small isolated issue and that it wasn't a big problem. >> eliot: no one asked him about reports that he looked at weeks before that statement or he could not possibly have known the trade posed a huge risk. >> do you regret calling the

efforts to require banks to hold more money quote unamerican, and, quote putting the nail in our coffin. >> i don't, i don't think what he said was true. i support parts of regulation and reform. i support higher cap and liquidity. we support an oversight committee and clearinghouses. we support proper transparency. we supported most--a lot of things that you requested. and we is it not fight everything. >> eliot: but dimon was fighting against everything that would have matter. he didn't fight when asked if morgan would try and claw back some of the money. >> it is likely, this is subject to board but it is likely it will be club x. >> eliot: easy to give back her money. no question if dimon's pay should be crawled back.

we have dennis kelleher, here to promote the public interest in the financial markets here and abroad. was this a complete as far as? this was not a cross-examination the way you as an expert lawyer would have conducted it? >> well, no, it wasn't a cross-examination. and somewhere close to a farce than an examination. but part of the problem is that a senate hearing is actually designed to show more heat than light. you get five minutes and they go back and forth between democrats and republicans. at the same time it was pretty amazing the lack of substance in any real question of, you know, the head of the biggest bank in the united states and one of the biggest banks in the world who has admitted that he actually had no idea what was going on in his own bank, and including a part that he supposedly knows all about, which is investing $357 billion, and he doesn't have a clue. that seems to me to warrant some

pretty probing questions, and he didn't get any. >> eliot: that's exactly right. sometimes it's the little details that are most revealing. it's been reported that he spoke directly to the traders who were responsible for putting on these so-called hedges. and if he was speaking to them directly, why not the question how often? when? about wham? he was not only relying on information from intermediaries. he was hands on enough to speak to the traders. if that was the case how could he be so much in the dark about what was going on? >> you raised three very good points. this guy is a detailed guy. he's supposedly knows everything that is going on throughout the bank. that's apparently true when things go well. but when things go wrong he has no idea, and not only isn't he hands on, he doesn't have hands ears or eyes. it's amazing. he should not be allowed with the contradiction where he gets the upside and everybody else who works there gets the down side. that's the problem. problem number two the reports

are he talked directly to these traders before he made these statements on april 13th. nobody asked him about it. point number three. there have been reports that have not been denied and have been very thoroughed, particular particularly bloomberg jamie dimon personally transferred afl/cio office into a high risk, trading operations and did he it over the last several years to the point in 2010 this group contributed 25% to the net income of jp morgan chase. you can bet that jamie dimon was all over where every one of these pennies came from. >> eliot: you made the most critical point. 5% of the net of the bank was coming from this operation in london. they were taking high risk positions. this goes to the heart of the volcker rule. that is the rule that jamie

dimon is lobbying against. why not push aggressively on what he has said about that rule why that rule is so critical, and why that rule is properly crafted and put in place as proposed by volcker and would have eliminated the possibility of losing the $5 billion. >> astonishing for a man under oath he also said at one point he didn't even know what the volcker rule was. i find that particularly surprising. he was at the united states treasury department on april 26th of this year, not two months ago. with other bankers lobbying the number two person in the treasury department to weaken the volcker rule. not only does he know what it is not only has he personally lobbied against it, he has led the fight with his lobbyists and lawyers to kill and gut it as much as possible. and the volcker rule as currently proposed, if it was in place, it not only would have

prohibited this type of activity, it should have made sure that it never happened. no matter what you say this was a prop trade. another thing, eliot interestingly, that he got away with he keeps talking about how this trade morphed into something he didn't like. trades don't porph. it's not a living organism. it did not morpm into a prop trade. it was moved and put into place by certain experienced well-paid jp more ban morgan officers. they were supposed to be supervised and appeared to have been supervised and interacted with the ceo personally. so morph was to throw up confusion. >> eliot: that's going to be the new excuse of choice. the other thing that he was not asked about at all was the conflict that i think is overwhelming of his being on the board of the new york fed. the very organization that

overseasseaoversees makes judge on what he should and should not do. >> the other thing that was outrageous. the report just came out that the american net worth of american families has gone down 40% as a result of this financial crisis. american families are now in an economic position in terms of wealth where they were 18 years ago. that's the price that the american people have paid for this financial crisis. and here we have the largest bank in america not four years after that crisis engaging in the same high-risk trades that actually helped precipitate that crisis. it's at the core can of the woman street business model. that's where he got a free ride today. >> eliot: dennis kelleher, thank thank you for your time tonight. >> nice to see you. >> eliot: as jamie dimon walked into the hearing room today, he was greeted by a heckler who had

wise words about our next guest. >> he's a crook. he has taken $4 billion in u.s. funds this guy should be going to prison. him and 18 others. we need to listen to personally sanders. we need to listen to independent senator bernie sanders. >> eliot: we're delighted to have the opportunity to do just that. with us to discuss the dimon hearing, senator bernie sanders independent of vermont. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> didn't we learn anything fundamentally? is there anything coming out of this political theater that is useful in terms of reregulating, regulating and solving the problem of controlling wall street? >> eliot, i fear not. i think really one of the great scandals of our time is that after the recklessness and greed and illegal behavior on wall

street it plunged this country in the horrible recession that we're in. you have seen the fed reports of median family income going down between 2007, 10 by 40%. median family income going down, unemployment sky high, people losing their homes. after all of that damage you would think--you might think that the congress would say whoa, we got a real problem with the way wall street functions. things have got to change. they've got to end the gambling casino. they've got to investigating in the productive economy. help us expand the middle class. you would think that maybe that was the lesson learned here in congress sadly had hasn't been. >> you say it, often i think about the day that you talk about, my heart starts pounding quickly and i get upset. you're right. this is exactly the conundrum we're facing. there is no sense when you watch and listen to jamie dimon or his colleagues that they acknowledge

that structurally there is a problem there. one issue that did not come up today, an issue that you've been rightly focusing on is his presence on the new york fed. this concentration of power and capital that they simply refuse to unwind. nobody asked him about that. how is that possible? >> eliot, it is really quite astounding. you understand why congress has the 14 or 15% favorability. what i introduced was i thought was extremely conservative. most americans think it would be crazy to have among others the head of the largest financial institution in america jamie dimon of jp morgan chase sitting on the new york fed when the function of the new york fed is supposed to be among other things regulating wall street. if this is not the fox guarding the hen house, i don't know what is. this is kind of like a no-brainer.

bernanke was before the joint economic committee. i asked him about. he said, you guys created the law. if you want to change the law we'll work with you. you know, it is just incredible to me that we can't even gain the kind of support we need for this modest fed reform. >> eliot: that is not exactly right. it is something that you have been leading the charge on. i've been speaking about it, writing about it, it typifies this concentration of decision making where the people who talk to each other, you have jamie dimon talking to other bankers talking to regulators, and then we wonder why that same universe of people doesn't understand structurally why the system will collapse again five years from now. they're presiding over the edifice that should have been shattered and yet we're rebuilding it. i don't get why we're doing that. >> absolutely. the idea that we don't have a fed which is sitting there with knowledgeable, intelligent people who are fighting for the middle class, not just for the

profits of the large financial institutions. to me that is a simple reform. but at the end of the day if we are serious about trying to rebuild the middle class of this country, rebuild our manufacturing, etc., etc. no question we need real wall street reform. to get wall street reform we need fed reform. we got to get the bankers off the regional fed. >> eliot: that logic is perfect and exactly right. one of the things that you alluded to in the report to show that the assets that are owned by families have dropped by 30% to 40% over the last couple of years, a critical component has been housing prices. housing prices collapsed because of the cataclysm of '08. we have not done anything fundamentally to the mortgage market. the banks have trillion of dollars. homeowners got zip. nothing. can anything be done at this late stage in the obama administration? >> can anything be done? yes. will it be done? probably not. it's not because smart people

don't have good ideas about how to do it. it really has to get back to the unbelievable power of wall street with citizens united by the bay way it makes wall street reform much more difficult. i will tell you from a political perspective i think the american people remain furious at what wall street did to them, and i think they're extremely upset we have not been more aggressive in bringing real wall street reform to this country. >> eliot: senator, i agree with you. that's why i was startled to see the reception that jamie dimon got today. certainly more on the republican side of the aisle but not exclusively. he was greeted as though he was the one to provide wisdom to congress. give us your best advice on how to deal with economic issues rather than someone who should have been excoriated over the losses. >> eliot, when i was in the house i was member of the financial services committee.

what you described reminds me so much of the reception alan greenspan used to get when he would come before the committee. all of the republicans many democrats, would bow in front of him and say how brilliant he was in his efforts to deregulate wall street, etc., etc. of course, then the whole house of cards collapsed. but it is, look, wall street--let's not kid ourselves. to get deregulation you remember this very well. you were in the middle of this thing. they spent $5 billion over a ten-year period against deregulation. they have incredible wealth, incredible power and that's the sad story. >> eliot: you're exactly right. i got to tell you i could never understand what alan greenspan said. whether it was his articulation or verb structure i never could get it. bernie sanders always greet to have you with us. that heckler got it right. we should always listen to you. >> eliot: tomorrow night we'll have full coverage of the

president's economic speech in [[vo]]joy behar is coming to current tv for one week only until the fall. what happens if you ask her to tone down her opinions? >>sorry, i can't hear you. what? [[vo]]or tell her she has to stick to a script? >>forget it. [[vo]]that will never happen on current. >>try to be a little more conservative tonight. and everyone likes 50% more cash -- well, except her. no! but, i'm about to change that. ♪ every little baby wants 50% more cash... ♪

phhht! fine, you try. [ strings breaking wood splintering ] ha ha. [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card. the card for people who want 50% more cash. ♪ what's in your wallet? ♪ ♪ what's in your...your... ♪ the new slogan should be "we own wall street." that's my view. 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. it starts at $59 for the entire year for back up. put in code stephanie for your subscription. 18 minutes after the hour. >> david: the president has changed healthcare whether or not the supreme court upholds his plan and even the insurance companies see it. which brings us to the number of the day three. that's how many insurance companies offer to save some of the popular benefits from the president's healthcare plan no matter what the courts say.

united healthcare you man in a and aetna say children can still stay on their parent's plan until they are 26, and they won't set lifetime dollar limits on policies or cancel policies except in case of frauds. why are these companies being so generous? maybe to make them look good. house speaker john boehner tried to edge around this, saying, quote, today's announcement is a remind that are sensible healthcare reform does not require the massive government takeover in washington democrats' law. but come on, the companies wouldn't have promised these concessions if democrats hadn't passed the law. now if the court upholds the individual mandate and companies start covering all pre-existing conditions people may like the 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: on the day that president obama's favorite banker testified on call toll hill. mitt romney by a money slide including to politico's sec filings, mitt romney's campaign of the super pac supporting it raising $37.1 million from financial sector donaries. obama and his super pac have raised $4.8 million. that massive disparity leaves 19 major donors to obama's 2008 campaign who have now sweeped allegiances. here to exam obama's shrinking wall street donors,. >> henry bl odget.

>> when he steps back from it, he has been so kid glove in his treatment of wall street. they're bigger, more powerful. no meaningful reform. he has done nothing but to offend them. >> eliot: but i want to be more cynical than that. i thought there was a transaction there that they both understood. i'll call a few names but give you what you want. you can pretend to be upset but you'll support me in the long run. didn't they get this was the sophisticated way to play the game. >> if that's the way it has worked out they have shifted allegiance. they don't even want to be bashed. >> eliot: but it's suggesting that they're that weak emotionally and raises for me the question. i presume that they're smart when it comes to finance and economics, do they believe what mitt romney is calling for lower taxes deregulation, precisely what led to the last cataclysm, do they think that will help them in the long run? >> i think bankers are

perpetually optimistic about the future. when you're betting that much money you have to believe you're going to win and you won't make the down side mistakes. it was the old idiots who did that. it will never happen again. over history we have these market cycles that repeat. as you've seen and everybody has seen again and again and again. i just think it's optimism. they like to be free to make their own mistakes. no one wants to be constrained. they don't want congress saying you can make that trade and you can't make that trade. that's understandable, but wall street will blow itself up. >> eliot: i like optimism but intelligence tied to it couldn't hurt. >> the intelligence is nine times out of ten i'll make a gazillion dollars. one time maybe we'll lose money. i could get fired. go to a hedge fund and i'll make more money than what i'm making here. who pays for it? shareholders and taxpayers.

>> eliot: the ultimate moral hazard that really became a cliché over the last four or five years, heads we win tails we lose. we socialize the risk and privatize the game. >> that's exactly it. if you look at one thing that needs to change, congress needs to agree that we need to do away with the too big to fail. fine if you want to let the banks gamble as long as you're willing to step in and make the shareholders and the people who lent the banks money pay the price, which is what we didn't do before and that screwed the whole system up. >> eliot: that's what we did not do this time around. >> actually. taxpayers. >> eliot: we did not do what you just said. we raised capital requirements, we're peddling around with a volumevolcker rule, but nothing with the reform going forward. >> you go in, take the bank over. make sure that the shareholders and the bondholders who lent the company money lose money. that's capital lymph.ism.

once you strip that out. >> eliot: let's go back to the president. he's giving a speech tomorrow. it's being billed as a major street. can he say anything to change the trajectory between now and november. >> i don't think he can do anything to change the trajectory. he had the gaffe where people don't want to hear that the private sector is fine j you don't things are fine? >> it's better than the public sector but not much. but. >> eliot: in terms of how things the trajectory of the economy, you point this out in a spectacular slide show, corporate profits of all things, way up since he took over, and that has not been reflected in the house in jumping houses or employment. why not? >> we have an extraordinary problem in the country is that inequality has hit a level that we have not seen since the 1920s. it took the depression and everything to bring that out and

we got back to normal in the 1950s. right now disparity in incomes and corporate profits are the highest ever. that money is not flowing to the people who work for the corporations. just to the top. i think that is a fundamental problem with the economy. most the spending power comes from the middle class. it's not from rich people. >> eliot: middle class consumption is what drives the demand for goods and then provides the demand for more labor. that chart is so powerful. one corporate ceo should like the president because he has presided over a complete rebound photographer corporate profits. and then what could be done to those ceos since they're sitting on those profits warren buffet's statement the other kay notwithstanding, how do you you get them to hire people. >> consumers still have debt coming out of their ears. we are still working off the little up. that is happening. debt is coming down.

that's good. that will free up spending. but that's the thing that all companies are facing. they could build five more factories. >> eliot: you're not going to produce more widgets if no one is buying them. >> so what we need to figure out is how to get corporations to invest more in people and pay them more, walmart everybody the average is $12 an hour. walmart paid people $20 an hour, their profits would go down but those people would have more money to buy stuff from walmart. you get the money circulating. >> eliot: time is short. jamie dimon has been testifying it's all over the news. did he win? did he lose? did he burr initial his reputation? >> i thought he did a great job. being called in to get beaten up by congress is never a happy event. he handled it well. the handshakes before the event was like a country club, good to see you. and i thought he deflected it

very well. >> eliot: he won because the senators are a bunch of idiots, can we say that? they didn't even ask him the hard questions. >> the real frustration that i had, congress is okay at asking questions on tv. they have done nothing, four years no reform. that's the problem. >> eliot: they're bought and they're bought cheap. i hate to say it, they're bought and bought cheap. the house will give jamie dimon round two. my prediction, even worse. editor in chief henry blodgett. thank you. >> thank you. >> eliot: mike tyson sings and he has not

of sununu, you're wrong. mitt romney, you're wrong. we need more teachers, not fewer teachers and more cops and more firefighters that support our a great tasting mint core, frosted in powerful cooling crystals. ice breakers frost. feel the frost.

>> eliot: coming up for the obama administration, the leaks keep on coming. first george hw shows his sox and mike tyson and bill o'reilly and colon powell show their

vocal range. when it doesn't fit anywhere else we put it in the few finder. >> mitt romney, mitt, our buddy is going on a six-state bus tour and mitt is very excited because he's never been on a bus. >> romney: i met a guy yesterday, 7 feet tall. i figured he was in sports. he was not in sports. >> the tall man was not in sports. neither bounce ball nor oblong leather zip lynn kind. >> the nba final. pros okc stands for oklahoma city. cons mia, stands for lebron james in the fourth quarter ♪ lebron james ♪ oooh ♪ >> there's current tv.

>> you catch current watch this show. we're current. >> i like a colorful sock. i'm a sock man. >> and they've been comparing your socks to that of justin bieber. >> is he a sock man. >> he is evidently is a sock man. >> i don't know much about the bieber. >> baby, baby boop, boop, bop. >> is that his song. >> i don't think i would like it ♪ i just met you ♪ and this is crazy ♪ but here's my number ♪ so call me ♪ baby ♪ >> or the standards expressed. [ cell phone ringing ] ♪ here's my baby ♪ don't call me may be ♪ >> i figured he had to be in sports, but he wasn't in sports. >> eliot: i said it before, the most awkward politician in

[[vo]]joy behar is coming to current tv for one week only until the fall. what happens if you ask her to tone down her opinions? >>sorry, i can't hear you. what? [[vo]]or tell her she has to >>forget it. [[vo]]that will never happen on current. >>try to be a little more conservative tonight.

you'd spot movement, gather intelligence with minimal collateral damage. but rather than neutralizing enemies in their sleep you'd be targeting stocks to trade. well, that's what trade architect's heat maps do. they make you a trading assassin. trade architect. td ameritrade's empowering web-based trading platform. trade commission-free for 60 days, and we'll throw in up to $600 when you open an account.

admitted that that look, we were able to keep a lot of the folks because of the stimulus. >> bill: absolutely. again, do you great work, judd. thank you. all of your colleagues at think progress. we'll see you again next what makes hershey's s'mores special? pure chocolate goodness that brings people together. hershey's makes it a s'more... you make it special. pure hershey's. >> eliot: we will not negotiate bilateral trade agreements that stop the government from protecting the environment food safety or the health of its citizens. those were the words of candidate obama in 2008. but president obama may have done just that. a leaked document realized by public citizen outlines a portion of the deal the president is negotiating as part of the transpacific trade pack.

a pack that seeks to open trade among countries bordering the pacific association. joining me now director of global trade wash which first released the leaked document. thank you for your time tonight. >> eliot: thank >> thank you. >> eliot: first explain to us what is in this document and why would it violate an essential pledge that he made in 2008. >> so the document is one of 26 chapters of what has been branded as a trade agreement. but as this particular chapter leaking shows trade is really the least of it. in fact, the agreement would require the u.s. as well as other countries involved to, quote, conform their domestic laws regulation and procedures to all the attached chapters. only two of the 26 have to do with trade. the one that leaked sets up

limitations for the u.s. government not to regulate companies operating here and subject disputes between the u.s. government and foreign investors to international tribunals. the foreign investors would not have to meet our laws or go to our courts. while domestic courts were, and this violates a number of obama's pledges agreements like this one would no give greater rights to foreign firms rather than domestic ones. >> eliot: this would allowed companies to circumvent our legal framework and go to a tribunal standards. >> it's even a step worse. the rules in this leaked chapter explicitly for bid certain kinds of government policies. for instance, you're not allowed to use capital controls. very important financial

regulation mechanisms, or you're not allowed to band a financial instrument no matter how risky. if you do that, the foreign investor can go to one of these tribunals, sue you directly, not your law not your court and demand unlimited payments of our treasury fund to make up for their expected lost profits. the so-called judges are three private sector attorneys no conflict of interest rules and we submit to the jurisdiction to the tribunal. >> eliot: there are two discreet areas that are enormous. the substantive set of issues that we're ceding thise nor us this enormous capacity for our own always, relating to dodd frank, for example, or legal or environmental standards, and second, this has all been done in secrecy. getting numbers of congress, and senator wyden in particular terribly upset. the white house will not give

him this information perhaps because they know how injurious it is if we understand what they're negotiating. >> let's put this in perspective. senator wyden is the chairman of the trade sub committee. that is the committee in the u.s. senate that has jurisdiction over the so-called trade agreement. they will not let him or his staff see the text. so when this text leaked, this was the first time in three years of closed-door negotiations that the public, the press congress, got to see what is being done. now, there are 600 official u.s. corporate trade visors who have been in this process. so it's not a shocker though disgusting, that you have such an extreme tax that would handcuff government and have this parallel corporate court system meanwhile something like that count happen if we had a look at it. we need to get all of the text out because who knows what is in the other chapters. >> eliot: i want to make sure that everybody understand what you just said. there are 600 corporate

representatives who have had full access to this, yet the chairman of the sub committee that is supposed to pass judgment upon it has been told he can't look at it. >> as well as all of us who live with the results but yes the chairman of the committee, as you pointed out on the intelligence committee, security clearance, the corporations have clearance, too. but they get access to the text and the senator doesn't. it's that process is why we have such an extreme substantive rules. it's not just financial regulation. it has to do with land use, a requirement that there is a guaranteed standard of treatment for access and natural resources resources, fights over western land contracts for mining and timber under the process would go to these tribunals not u.s. law and courts. the foreign company special treatment. >> eliot: lori, very quickly because time runs short unfortunately, this represents

to me the reality, the unfortunate reality that the white house is buying into the entire paradigm of trade in a has destroyed middle class wealth, driven down wages is that what this represents? >> it's spot on, and this agreement makes it much easier to move jobs off shower because of all the protection for investors an this includes vietnam, the low-cows alternative to china. there is a snow job. they brand these for trade but the majority of the rules have nothing to do with trade. this agreement would ban the use of buying merge procurement. what is that doing in a trade agreement. >> eliot: we have to cut it there. realities of tv. we'll continue this conversation downtown. lori wallach, thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> eliot: syria is now in a civivivivivivivivivivivivivivivivivivivivivivivivivivivivivivi

jennifer granholm is politically direct on current tv. >>the dominoes are starting to fall. (vo) granholm is live in the war room. >> what should women be doing? >> electing women to office. (vo) she's a political trailblazer. >>republicans of course didn't let facts get in the way of spin. >>do it, for america. the new slogan should be "we own wall street." that's my view.

desk top, lab top, ipad. iphone. >> pleasant your hearts. >> the big one. >> stephanie: all i know, the little flower is there and it means go to meeting. i love go to meeting.

>> the high priest of voodoo economics is arguing with false numbers. first, let's check in with jennifer granholm. what have you got for us tonight? >> rush limbaugh is at it again going after america's nuns and we're not going to take it. we've got a sister with a group

of nuns protesting ryan's house budgets. we are going to preview the president's speech tomorrow. we've got that and more at the top of the hour. >> i thought one of the rules of life is you never attack nuns no matter what. you think he's going to get away with this? >> you know rush, but really it's more about what the vatican has been doing to quiet them and >> win by steven moore the article was an effort to justify the crazed economics of the right. the voodoo economics that says lowering taxes raises more revenue and that less government spending generates and increase in overall demand. theirs is a world of alice in

wonderland logics and numbers fabry gated we a looking glass world will support it. the most amazing feature of the nearby chart which is rarely ever noted is when spending declines, the economy boomed under president clinton. they continued maybe it was wrong. there was a dekleining line during the clinton years. the chart is not about spending it is about spending as a percentage of g.d.p. spending did not decline during the clinton years spending went to 1.8 trillion in 2000, an increase of 27% and it increased every year, not the decline they fabricated. government revenue went up from 1.15 trillion in 1993 to 2.02 trillion, and increase of

75.4%. clinton raised travels, spending went up, taxes went up and the economy grew. more spending helped. raising taxes helped. the economy flourished. this is totally opposite from their false claims. the larger point some: these guys will distort to make their arguments. history fails them. economics fails them. the only answer for them is to steve. it's time to call them out. that's my view. [[vo]]joy behar is coming to current tv for one week only until the fall. what happens if you ask her to tone down her opinions? >>sorry, i can't hear you. what? [[vo]]or tell her she has to stick to a script? >>forget it. [[vo]]that will never happen on current. >>try to be a little more conservative tonight.

economists joseph steiglitz, author of "the cost of inequality." up in connection, a look at the group that has the biggest stake and say in that future. wanna know the difference between a trader and an elite trader? it's this... the etrade pro platform. fast. beautiful. totally customizable. quickly scans the market for new trading ideas. it can even match options strategies to your goals and lets you see the potential risk and reward. and, it also comes with a dedicated elite service team. got it? get it. good. introducing new etrade pro elite. ♪ ♪

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. it starts at $59 for the entire year for back up. put in code stephanie for your subscription. 18 minutes after the hour. innovation matters now more than ever.

secretary of state hillary clinton maintains mascow was supplying syrian allies with attack helicopters being used to crack down on civilians. >> they have from time to time said that we shouldn't worry everything they're shipping is unrelated to their actions internally. that's patently untrue. >> joining me now is senior fellow of the britains institution and author of bending history. it seems syria is descending into civil war. how bad is it really? is this something that is just getting worse every day? >> i'm afraid so, governor, and i don't know how it's going to stop, because realistically this is about as complex of a military situation as i can really imagine for a country of syria's size. i don't know that any options put fort of how we could do limited things and avoid, you

know, and iraq or afghanistan style campaign but still make a dig difference. i don't know that any of those are workable and i don't see any side gaining a decisive upper hand. in the absence of some great diplomatic miracle which vladamir putin is unable to deliver. i don't see. >> a complete waste of time unfortunately and you referenced putin, are the russians supplying helicopters as secretary of state clinton asserted a few days ago? there's a harsh back and forth between us and russia on this. >> it seems that the administration's pretty confident that the intelligence on this is rock solid. what i don't know is the significance of these new helicopter deliveries compared to those that air i can't already owned. this is not the first time syria

had attack helicopters but the new ones may have better night vision technology. that could be important in some of the evening for nighttime confrontations that may be occurring, may have more accurate weaponry which makes them more usable. may be the previous helicopters weren't enough to be used in an urban setting. the new ones gives the pretense that it has more selective targeting. it appears they are being shipped right now by russia. >> even yawn military significance, the diplomatic significance is russia has no interest in withdrawing support in any effort to pressure into diplomatic resolution.

hence this tension between the two of us right now. the intelligence, the metzgers continuing unabated. >> what produces them and are they going to continue in definitely or does the regime have a strategy in mind. if it does, a few more of these in a few selective neighborhoods, it's persuaded itself somehow that it can prevail. it's not doing this out of complete disregard for human life. it has a theory about how this can end the war. i think it's wrong, because i think the syrian opposition has proven that it's not going away. this is the point putin is missing as well.

he might have hoped hasad staying in power might have been best, but at this point it's too late to put the gene knee back in the bottle. we might have to have power sharing. >> that games the question what can or should web doing in this context. it's hard to imagine the discontinues without some pause or resolution down the road. he cannot continue to massacre his own citizens. we are not giving the opposition enough fire power support or aid to permit then to continue. how do you see an end point here? >> i'll not going to be very encourages here. one thing we have to bear in mind is that militarily speaking every situation is different. the pop laces in syria are so

interspersed and terrain complex. there aren't long stretches of highway in between the rebels and forces and the government is well organized and its army is holding together well. i think we have to be wary. some of the same arguments i heard the neocons about how we could win easily in iraq are being trotted out as proposals of what to do with syria. give them weaponry, help them with air power create safe zones, give them a chance to cat lies a broader movement. i don't think that's really going to work. i'd love to be proven wrong, but i think realistically what's going to happen here is that we're going to try to give the opposition a built more weaponry and it's going to help make the war worse. over time, we hope the syrian regime reads the writing on the wall and they'll have two choices, let the war continue to

get worse, which is bad for all of w ones or have asad go into compile somewhere and have a power share between his regime and some kind of u.n. and arab league force. that's all the resolution i can see apart from this turning into the next lebanon or somalia. the regime is too strong, and yet the opposition is also growing in strength. the populations are interspersed. there's a sectarian component as well. >> the only way to sum it up is bleak and bleaker. on that positive note, thank you for your time, your in sights, bleak as they maybe. >> thank you governor. i wish i could have been happier. >> we'll try next time.