he'll put the top oil lobbyist as chief of ef of staff. that's crazy. that's all we have for you. eliot spitzer is next. good night. [ ♪ theme music ♪ ] >> john: good evening i'm john fugelsang sitting in for eliot spitzer, and this is "viewpoint." last week you enjoyed joy behar for a full week in the same spot. this week you're stuck with me. i'm not as fun as joy but i'll stick in the cord kardashian in every show this week. in with justice kagan recusing herself. the court voted unanimously to uphold a provision in the

immigration law. that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they stop if there is suspicion they're in the country illegally. it's called the "show me your papers provision" as it's sometimes called but sounds funny when said in a german accent. it would require immigrants to carry immigration papers, make it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek or work or hold a job. that will cause a crash to the economy. president obama said while he's pleased those particular provisions were struck down, quote, i remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally. on her part, jan brewer, the only governor to be serving on

an outpatient basis declared victory. >> this is the day that we have been waiting for and make no mistake arizona is ready. civil rights will be protected. racial profiling will not be tolerated. >> john: and you're brown and i'd like to see i.d. but critics think racial profiling is going to be unavoidable in this decision and ultimately it could be the law's undoing. >> as a practicing attorney i'll have a field day with an officer putting them on the stand and asking him what got him to think and conclude that this person looks suspicious. >> john: that's the big question. for more on immigration ruling i'm pleased to be joined by doug kendall. doug, thank you for being here with us. >> thanks for having me. >> john: were you surprised by this decision? >> i'm surprised about how

sweeping the supreme court's rejection of the arizona law was. the fourth provision as you mentioned, they really laid down the gauntlet. they didn't uphold it but said for now we're going to go let it go into force and we'll see. if arizona enforces it in a way that either leads to racial profiling or interferes with federal immigration program we'll come back and strike it down. i think the gauntlet is really laid down that even the one provision that is allowed to go into effect by this ruling is going to be in trouble down the road. it was a much more sweeping victory for the obama administration than people suspected. >> john: people think it will lead to racial profiling except for extremely conservative white people.

governor brewer thinks it's a victory for the state but it seems to be a victory for states rights. >> i think you're right. it could not be clearer that immigration law is a federal matter that has to be decided at the federal level and that really says to arizona you cannot take immigration law in your own hands. you cannot dictate the policy of immigration for this country. you cannot say that our accomplicespolyspoliciesare going to go through attrition in state law. >> john: are you surprised that they upheld the provision of the law. >> there is surprise on both sides. there is a little surprise that justice kennedy and justice

roberts the two more conservative justices joined in striking down much of this law. i think again there were enough parts of what the majority said which gave comfort to justices like justice sotomayor who is going to be concerned of about the harsh treatment of immigrants in the country you know what, if arizona enforces this in a way that will lead to racial profiling or interferes with the federal program they'll strike this down. there are enough protections in there. >> john: i have a serious question for you. governor brewer insists that their state police are trained to questioning that will not

lead to racial profile. is she in fact high. >> i can't speak to how she was before she spoke that. but it has lingered in the background to challenges to the law since it first passed are very still much alive and very much going to be part of the conversation moving forward. >> john: well, it's strange, the racial profiling aspect is what everyone is talking about and causing all the controversy. why wasn't it part of the administration's challenge to this law? >> i think you have to understand what the challenge was. it was a challenge before this law ever went into effect. what the obama administration did in this lawsuit was try to knock out big portions of this law before it even got into effect. the judgment was that it's much easier to prove racial profiling and to show that to a court once the law is being enforceds, once

you see what police officers are doing on the ground. it's a legal judgment by the administration that these where the preemption claims that they mostly won today the strongest ones to weed with and go with now, and the racial profiling claims as the court recognizes can be litigated once this law goes into effect. >> john: with i'm sure will happen. your organization did file a brief in this case with the supreme court. >> right. >> john: what was your brief pertaining to? >> it explained that the founders gave exclusive power to the federal government in areas like immigration and naturalization. there is actually the term in the constitution uniform when it describes the federal power over naturalization. it gives specific and contactual support of the invasive role of the federal government for setting immigration policy for this country. our argument was in this area in

particular the federal government has to set an uniform standard for policies and the state's can establish their own laws, their own attrition by enforcement policy. >> john: the biggest argument we hear against more hate crimes laws is just enforce the laws already on the books. it seems in this course case the supreme court said the same thing. doug, thank you so much for your time. what a pleasure, sir. appreciate it. >> thanks fork having me. >> john: for more on the impact on this ruling let's go to ken vogel. ken, good evening. >> hey john. >> john: thanks for being with us. i have so much to ask you. were you surprised that this much of the law three out of four provisions were struck down? >> no, i think it was a pretty careful measured ruling. while three out of the four provisions were strict down the fourth was the meaty issue. the supreme court took a

wait-and-see approach and almost welcoming if you read the opinion and as applied challenge on a specific case once the law is implemented. that would really provide why the administration didn't go after this racial profiling. there was nothing to go after once the law is implemented there will be the possibility of bringing an equal rights claim. i expect fully for the opponents of this to be looking diligently for such a test case and to bring a law enforcement as soon as they have one. >> cenk: just to put a fine point on it, what are the odds of a caucasian ever being inconvenienced by this law? >> much slimmer than someone of color. that's pretty clear. that was probably the intent whether admitted or not in the minds of the crafters of this legislation. >> john: is the law still popular with conservative folks in arizona?

>> it seems to be. a recent pew survey found it was not only popular with conservatives in arizona but popular with folks nationwide. not just conservatives, although if you look at the cross the pew study found 6 in 10 respondents approved. if you do delve a little deeper, the support is much higher amongst conservatives much higher among whites, and the indianapolises, hispanic, their disapproval was in a situation that would favor president obama in swing states and possibly arizona which many had firmly in the republican category may not be in play among the extreme dissatisfaction between the key and demographic growing area of

hispanic. >> john: we're waiting on the healthcare ruling on thursday, and everybody is saying either way it's going to be lose-lose for obama. this seems like its win-win because the makes the federal government case very strong and he still gets to run against the unpopular and what many people feel is the racist form of the law. >> that's a pretty good analyst. the federal government brought this case. it was upheld by the supreme court which found their case to be pretty strong, and it brings further attention to this issue that is uncomfortable one for mitt romney. that of immigration. he's just in a box thanks to president obama and the obama administration's efforts not only this case which was brought well before we knew that mitt romney was going to be the nominee, but also the executive order last week where president obama used the power of the executive branch to say that

most children of illegal immigrants would not be deported if brought against their volition, an that's one that also puts mitt romney in a box because he has attacked to the right on immigration during the g.o.p. primary in a way that leaves very little room that allows move to the center even on issues of the executive order, even though it is very popular among vast american electorate. there's not a lot of room, and that's why you see him dancing around taking a specific stance on the executive order and on this decision and on the obama administration case rather than bringing the case against the sb 1070. >> john: you're right. it does put romney in two separate boxes but that's not a huge risk as governor romney is very comfortable around around card

board. will you stay with me through the break. >> absolutely. >> john: citizens united and the state of montana. you'll want to see it. that's coming up next. 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.

>> john: it was a big weekend for wealthy republican fundraisers followed by a big wet kiss from the supreme court. rich folks have had it tough in this country for a long time. mitt romney entertained his donors behind closed doors in park at this, utah. whilethen today the court voted 5-4 to shut down an montana election law that prohibited corporate spending in political campaigns

doubling down on the citizens united ruling that allow unlimited private funds to be spent for or against any candidates making very very wealthy political donors very very happy. not so happy was justice stephen briar. he wrote in his dissent of montana's experience like the country's after citizens united, quote, casts grave doubt on the court's supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear so. fortunately the koch brothers do not care if they appear to be corrupt. we go back to political co's chief investigative reporter, ken vogel. >> this is the same vote we saw with citizens united 5-4, justice kennedy wrote the united

citizens united decision. many who think that the corporation money is corrupting, they saw the deluge advertising but citizens united, that that experience would get to some of the justices that they would see perhaps the unintended consequences of their ruling. but no such luck. in fact, we should have had something of a signal that this was going to be the result because when scalia was asked recently after speaking at a forum about this deluge of outside advertising, he said he sort much reiterateed the reasoning and said if you don't like all the ads just turn off the tv. >> john: exactly right. it should not be shocking when the two most powerful vocal opponents of citizens is you citizen

united is newt gringrich. who has been mum lately. i don't think wealthy donors are happy with disclosure rules, for example. >> that would be one target. there are cases working their way up through the courts of course, this goes back to the prop 8 case where conservatives ceased on some of the targeting of donors to proposition 8 out of california, the gay marriage proposition, and said that there were folks who were their free speech rights, the free speech to give a lot of money were child because when they gave and their donations were disclosed they found themselves subject to boycotts of businesses, their name publicized, and they were called bigots and the like. we're seeing that at the federal level. conservatives are up in arms

over a blog post on a bomb campaign website that identified a number of donors to mitt romney and the super pacs supporting him who the blog post said had less than representable records. some of the folks have been on something of a crusade to say this is an effort by president obama to use nixonion tactics being made against. they will you mentioned newt gringrich, he and mitt romney at various points during the g.o.p. primary when the super pac ads were a cause for consternation by the chattering classes they said this problem would go away if only we had unlimited donations to campaign. they could accept all the money we wouldn't need super pac. i think we would see a challenge and potentially the hope of conservatives would get up to a favorable supreme court. >> john: i should point out the

entire time this newt gringrich was complaining about this, he was taking big fat checks from sheldon adelson. this is more depressing than the star"star wars" pre-equals. people who don't have can own congress people and people who can buy elections and have more speech than regular people, is there any good news to any of this or is this airries aristocracy beating democracy. >> it's no longer imperative for a candidate or presidential office to go out and create this large base of small donors, folks who support them are going to give small checks and knock on doors and make phone calls for them because all you ready need to do is have a handful for one in the case of newt gringrich and sheldon adelson

and also the case of mitt romney and sheldon adelson, a big sugar daddy who is able to write these big checks for the super pac has your campaign's best interest at heart. it shifts the dynamic as far as setting up a campaign and looking at the possibility of a political career. >> john: i don't know what it will take to convince our conservative brothers and sisters that this law is bad as well. sheldon adelson is the poster boy of billionaire. he gave millions of gingrich and now to romney. his wife is the biggest female super pac donor in history. what does sheldon adelson want out of this? >> when i talked to him we wrote a story early on that we

heard that he was going to give upwards of $20 million as much as $20 million to the super pac supporting newt gringrich. he called me up to yell at me saying that is not true. he and his wife gave more than $20 million although $5 million has subsequently been refunded. when i asked him why do you want to support newt gringrich? why do you see him president? he said, why do you like steak. he responded with a question. i said steak tastes good. he said steak tastes good and he wants newt gringrich to be president because he thinks he'll be the best president. when i pushed further it came down to loyalty. newt gringrich was his guy. there are issues where newt gringrich aligns with him. his pet issue is the defense of israel. in his mind newt gringrich was the strongest candidate in the republican presidential primary on that. but i don't see a lot of self interested economic motivation. the guy is extremely wealthy.

he has made more money than any other american in the last few years. he doesn't need favors from the government. he has what is in had mind a diverse government. i don't see self interest in adelson. >> john: i think it has to do with him wanting to pay 9% tax rate for the rest of his life. thank you for bringing your brilliant here. >> my pleasure. >> john: as we've shown that one court can change the country and one with jennifer granholm. >>i am jenniffer granholm and you are in the war room. it's a beautiful thing. >>jennifer granholm on current tv. >>i'm a political junkie. this show is my fix. >>in politics, she was a gutsy leader. in cable news, she's a game changer. >>be afraid, be very afraid. now, the two term governor from

michigan is reshaping the debate with a unique perspective and a forward-thinking approach. >>our goal is to bring you behind the scenes with access to stories that you've never seen before. >>she's a trailblazer determined to find solutions. >>one of the key components of a war room is doing a bit of opposition research. >>driven to find the thruth. >>i'm obsessed with the role of govenment. >>fearless, idependent and above all, politically direct. >>part of the mission here in our own war room is to help these candidates stay on track. make your voice heard. >> john: when the supreme court keeps voting 5-4 in all these big issues, most of the nine justices don't really many. the number of the day is one. this is not the loneliest number but the one justice with one

vote the single most powerful man in america anthony kennedy known as a.k. mr. 5-4 and magic 8 ball, and this man is the swing vote on the divided court. a recent "time" magazine cover story called him "the decider" must have upset former president bush. he kept the part that obliges brown arizona. s to have i.d. on them. then justice kennedy swung and ruled that juveniles can't get mandatory life sentence without parole. liberals are happy conservatives are happy. we're confused. this week we'll cast the deciding vote on the mandatory insurance act.

justice kennedy has the only vote that matters. here is my idea, why don't we just let the other eight people just stay home. not just this week but all the time. this guy decides it half the time. stay home, more time for clarence thomas to sleep while his wife writes his decisions for him. and more time for route ruth bader ginsberg to work on "i'm sexy and i know it." and justice

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. ♪ ♪ >> david: the effects of the supreme court decision on people who really matter, the candidates. but first bill maher wants americans to grow up. charlie sheen wants a drink and that age old question. what is drugs. when it doesn't fit anywhere

else we put it in in the viewfinder. >> my point is to republican adults and it is this when 14-year-old boys sound exactly like you and can produce radio shows and quote speeches that sound exactly like yours maybe you should rethink what is coming out of your mouth. >> what is common sense? i can't hear. >> you you probably heard the rumors and they are true. i'm a democrat. [ sobbing ] >> i just want to help those who are less fortunate than i am. and i believe good affordable healthcare for everyone. >> why aren't you a democrat? it might not be as bad as you think. >> if i was your ♪ boyfriend ♪ never let you go ♪ keep you in my arm ♪ girl ♪ you'll never be alone ♪

>> hello a jury has convicted sandusky of molesting ten 15 boys over ten years. this will keep him in prison for the rest of his life. >> i have swag. >> where are you from? >> hollywood california. >> why are you on this chase? >> because i swag. >> are you on drugs or alcohol? >> what are drugs. >> what are you going to do? happy hour somewhere in the world. >> enough with the therapy. the therapy is my father would take off his belt and whip my in thethe butt. that's therapy. >> we could have used thunder. this morning nothing heat, no thunder. >> john: they call mitch daniels sandusky. he'll have to keep the door open

for every student in purdue the airplanes are going to get from one part of the country to the other without any air traffic controllers. i mean this is ridiculous and mitt romney ought to know better. i stand with our public employees and cops and firefighters and their teachers?

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.

>> john: well, supreme courts ruling on sb 1070 was not a clear victory on either side. what is clear is that immigration will remain a major issue in november. earlier i read you a portion of president obama's statement on the ruling, not to be outdone governor romney released his own statement. quote, today's decision underscores the need for a president who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy. i believe that each state has the duty and right to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilityies. in other words, it's the president's fault for not having a strategy but it's up to each state to come up with their own individual strategy. a much more ambiguous answer than the governor gave four short months ago.

>> the right course for america is to drop these lawsuit against arizona and other states that are trying to do the job that barack obama isn't doing. >> joining me now is basil michael. and michael maslansky. >> where is he failed. >> we haven't seen anything from him for the time that he has been in office until a month ago where he said he was not going to enforce the laws on the books. he came into office saying he was going to make progress on immigration. we haven't seen anything. the arizona law from the begin was an attempt to fill the vacuum, the real problem that arizona has on the law that there are no enforcement of immigration laws and they have a

problem, and. >> john: the counter argument, and i heard governor romney say the same thing. here is a president with the record number of deportations and send the national guards to the border and it was revealedded we've had a net zero increase in illegal immigration from 2005 to 2010. i even heard that president's policies have help slow the tide. >> we've create an economic environment where coming to america is not nearly as attractive for people who are coming. >> john: and maybe president bush should take credit for that. zero is zero. if it's not as big of a problem as it was. let me ask you bah-sill, is it election-year hype. >> no, the president came out and proactively game came out and

made positive changes. one thing folks on the left may take issue is that the president doesn't take executive power enough. he has made significant progress. this law i'm afraid to go to arizona, quite frankly. i don't want to be racially profile. if you thought stop and frisk was bad this is significantly worse. i honestly don't believe that between now and the election whether it's governor romney or the president is going to be making significant additional statements to try to take on this issue head-on. everybody votes for economy. they have a bit of a tightrope to walk, but this is a huge victory for the president if he can maintain the moment, i new testament,moment--momentum, i this

helps him. >> i don't think you you have as much to worry about unless you're latino. >> that's true. >> john: cough up the documentation now, sir. the big question we're hearing about governor romney now is you can't win the white house without 40% of the latino vote. he was a bit--it's fair to say-- say--cagey with bob sheiffer, bob is still waiting for the answer on the act. my question is what can the governor do between now and november to excite the very large conservative latino population and get them on his side. >> it's not immigration. the key for romney is stop talking about immigration and start talking about the place where he's going to do the best for latinos, whites and

african-americans, that's the economy. this is a race where there are two different philosophies of governing. latinos subscribe much more strongly to the conservative view with the right to earn your way to success. what he has got to do is start talking more about how he's going to help hispanic and latinos by creating more jobs, the economy and creating a place where everybody can do better and leave immigration on the side. >> john: which leads that the democrats will talk immigration to hurt the governor. bah-sill what is the biggest story. is this delighting both side or the citizens united being reinforced in montana. >> what is interesting, the bigger story is the immigration story. but the biggest impact is citizens united because of the amount of money that is going to be spent in this race and has been spent in this race. whether democrats like citizens united or not, whether we appreciate it being upheld or

not, unfortunately, we have to play ball. we have to play ball to be competitive and stay competitive. i think that will have the most impact in november. the immigration i think we certainly will talk about it, and it will certainly be an interesting and good talking point i hope for the president. but what is interesting if you take the citizens united ruling, both sides are going to be spending that money to get the message out about the immigration ruling in the next couple of months. >> john: yeah, but you're looking at koch brothers money versus teachers union's money. the president did stand up against citizens united in the state of the union address but he didn't say anything today about it. >> he didn't say anything about it, i don't want to say culpable. >> john: but he has to play ball. >> at the end of the day money is only a piece of the puzzle.

there are plenty of levers of influence. money is one of them. it's important but not everything. there is plenty of money to go around. both sides will have an opportunity to air their ideas. they'll both have plenty of opportunities to make their case why people should elect them. and at the end of the day no matter how much money you spend people have to go to the voting box and pull the lever. >> cenk: this is sheldon adelson pouring money in, and do we look at governor romney who looks to be far-better funded just pouring anti-president obama ads instead of pro romney ads in those swing states. >> yes. the democrats will pull out big names that have influence. they'll use that influence. republicans may ice use money. there are plenty of democrats with punish. fewer today than four years ago.

>> john: because they're liberals and he has not governed like a liberal? >> no, because in many cases he has been anti-business. there's are liberal business people who were for him on liberal policies but oppose him because he has been so anti-business. he has told them he does not want people to do well in business in america. that's why-- >> john: okay, i wish we had a whole segment to tear that last line apart. i was with you there but come on now. wow, free hallucinogenics with every purchase. i wish we had more time to talk about this. thank you for your time tonight. i hope to see you again soon. yeah, hates business. the fast and furious debacle has created bipartisanship it's go time! >>every weeknight cenk uygur calls out the mainstream media. >>overwhelming majority of the county says: "tax the rich don't go to war."

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.

>> john: i can describe a resist in the g.o.p. in three words. mary cheney's wedding. that's ahead. but first let's head west and check in with governor jennifer granholm in the war room. good evening what have you got for us tonight? >> yeah, john, first of all we'll pick up where you left off in terms of the supreme court. of course it did send a message today, and it's one that really should wake america and progressives up. obviously the courts ruled by five men with a conservative agenda. if you don't think it matters then vote for mitt romney. but if this right-wing court disturbs you then this election is part of a mandate really on them not just on the presidency. we'll dissect the ruling on immigration and particularly campaign finance and we'll look forward to the healthcare ruling

ruling. all at the top of the hour in "the war room." >> john: it's a huge week of news that effects all of us. i can't wait to watch. i appreciate he's certifiably insane! and just signs a deal for $100 million and people listen to that crap! i just can't believe it. 1-866-55-press. your latest on glenn beck. let's talk about it. >> announcer: this is the "bill press show." live on your radio and current tv. >> john: last week mary cheney married her long time partner heather poe in a same-sex we hadding in washington, d.c. mary, as we all know is the daughter of former vice president dick cheney or as the secret service used to call him

in the white house gepetto. the cheney family was understandably delighted that mary could finally marry the person she loves right here america. mary cheney, allow me to say you're welcome. while they spent decades calling people like mary deviant, we were right here. liberals were writing checks to defeat that homophobic agenda. and while fox news spent hundred of hours calling mary a threat, the verydid mitt romney send a gift? a card, did he at least text you, this could an good time to remind the cheney family that their party is about to run a guy for president who is on the record supporting a constitutional amendment banning

same-sex marriage you might ask yourself, hey, self, why would the cheneys vote for a man who so disregard one of their own? why would they support a homophobe? why? because mitt romney is not really a homophobe. he came out for civil unions, then he came out against them. in light of his previous stances, one can only conclude that mitt romney is not a homophobe, he just can't risk losing the homophobic vote. i think it's just a little bit worse than an actual ignorant activate bigot. but in fairness, dick cheney was ahead of the curb. he was in favor letting gays serve in the military long before president obama although not doing much about it.

and at least mary cheney' dad is proof that no g.o.p. president innovation matters now more than ever.

>> john: fast and furious, it's that story you've been hearing about for from all of your right-wing friends family and coworkers and the neighbor that you have with that that angry eagle tattoo. agent brian terry was accidently shot and fast and furious weapons were found at the scene of his murder, but only one party is exploring the death for cheap political gain. now darrell issa, who may be the only american who is an actual

lawbreaker connected with this break, he went on tv this past weekend and said-- >> do you have any evidence that white house officials were involved in these decisions that they knowingly misled congress and are involved in a cover up? >> no, we don't. >> john: so you're going after the white house except they're not actually connected. this is revealed on fox news. this is what we call tea bagging yourself. then there is this. >> could it be that what they were really thinking of was, in fact, to use this walking of guns in order to promote an assault weapons ban? many think so and they have not come up with an explanation that would cause any of us to disagree. >> john: many think so, that's convincing. it's just a plot to have begun law it'sness so the government can come in and swoop in and take your guns. if that's true then the nra is whowhohas been trying to do away with

sensible gun laws, they will want them to come in and take away their guns. damn those guys are ahead of the curve. giving guns to bad guys is treason unless it's iran and you're reagan. and the stupid failed bipartisan drug war this is a symptom. and this is not barack obama's watergate but i ssa's white water. matthew miller, thank you for joining me. my first question is why would not a single member of the bush administration or justice department called to these hearings? >> it is a really great question and it's something that the democrats on chairman issa's committee has asked for again. they've ask them to bring in

bush's last ag and who last received a memo in black and white said talked about operation where is guns were allowed to walk. he and other members from the administration as well as people from this administration career officials who said that no one in senior positions under the obama administration knew about it. basically anyone who does not get general chairman issa's agenda were called. >> john: are they trying to destroy the second amendment? >> well, that's the conspiracy theory that he endorsed this week. i was surprised to see him say it. that's always been a conspiracy theory at the heart of this on the right that this was some kind of plot and it's hard to imagine, it's some kind of plot that the administration would allow the guns to cross the border and that would create such outrage that the congress would then pass gun control laws. it used to be just on the far

fringes on the right but chairman issa from time to time and this sunday was willing to endorse it himself. >> john: i don't know how much free time you have, but i have quite a bit. i have time to subscribe to the newsletters. i've been reading how attorney general holder is coming to take away your guns. then you ask your right wing friends who he has done? have they dropped this as a campaign issue but you keep hearing that holder is coming for your guns. where is there so much antipathy on the right. >> i'm from texas originally. whenever i go home to see my family i hear it. in early of 2009 if you want to see where this comes from, after obama was elected and holder became the attorney general there was a massive shortage of ammunition across the country because people were convinced that guns and ammunition was going to be taken away from them

so people were hoarding it. i don't know where exactly where the paranoia is coming in, but i think the nra whips it to support it's causes and it comes from the right as a fear tactic to come after the ag and the president. >> john: and fundraising, every place in the nra has a place for you to send your checks. >> yes, but i hope you don't. >> john: i don't. but it's amazing that this guy is the top cop in america and we finally found a cop that america doesn't like or believe. why do you think that they're holding a contempt hearing scheduled this thursday? is it all politics? >> it has nothing to do with gun trafficking. unfortunately, i mean, there are 50,000 people in mexico who have lost their lives in violence in the last few years and you don't hear much about that from republicans in congress, but when they find a way to try to

attack embarrass the president the attorney general then this is an issue that they care very much about and they've been pushing for a year and a half, but it has nothing to do with uncovering what happened in fast and furious and everything to do with politics. >> john: were you surprised that issa offered to drop the contempt charges if lanny brewer resigned? >> i wasn't, when you create as much anger and set expectations as high as issa has and then cannot deliver, that's what happened to issa, you need a way out. he needed a scalp as his way out, and if not contempt. that's what he's doing. >> john: thank you so much and keep your ex-bosses' hand's off my guns please. >> i'll try. >> john: stay tune for jennifer granholm on "the war room." that's only right here on