>> michael: i'm david sirota in for michael shure. "rolling stone" magazine, alan grace son and one of the lawyers representing two of the americans killed by drone strikes in yemen. s it's going to be a good one. we get started right now. >> i'm david sirota. there is no such thing as a day off here, so even though michael shure is in washington, he'll be checking in throughout the show. list start with the fallout from the zimmerman verdict. trayvon martin's parents broke their immediate silence about their 17-year-old son and the man who walked free after

fatally shooting him. they should up onthey appeared somber and repeatedly expressing their shock about the not guilty verdict. they say that they're stunned. >> trayvon is not a confrontational person. so instead of placing the blame on the teenager we need to place the blame on the responsible adult. we had an adult chasing a kid. and we had a kid who i feel was afraid. >> the troubling part of this dialogue comes from some conservative who is say that some how race was not a factor. ann coulter backed that argument up saying, it's a relief that someone who was innocence did not have to be sacrificialal lamb for this media narrative about america being run by the klan. and they keep saying that george zimmerman is the real victim.

outspoken conservative ted nugent said that zimmerman should sue the martin family for the, quote stress, emotional pain and any anguish that their son caused george zimmerman. and their son brought about their own demise. only in america can a 17-year-old be put on trial for his own murder. i'm joined by michael tomasky from the dale by beast from washington, d.c. and also joining me a fresh face faced political analyst, someone you never heard of, his name is michael shure. thank you for being here. in the country there is a heated debate about race. new polls show that opinions are

divide. 68% of black respondents were disappointed by the verdict. we'll start with you, michael tomasky. what could you think the poll tells us on the national conversation on racism? >> it tells us that it's hard to have this conversation. most people don't want to have this conversation, and i think there is also, david a particular reason why it's hard to have this conversation in this kind of context. all of the people involved, the famous and now infamous juror b 37 and even the other four jurors who spoke up and said that that juror does not speak for us. and all those in officialdom if you will, they feel compelled to deny that race had any role in it. they might not think that, but they feel compelled to say it because jurors don't want to

admit that race might have influenced their thinking, and people in position of power also don't want to say that because they don't want to be seen standing any flames. obama's statement after the verdict did not message race at all. so you have this official response, which we all kind of know really, it can't possibly be the truth. there is no way that this would have gone down the same way if the kid had been white or what have you yet this fiction needs to be maintained, and it's backed up, unfortunately, the views of people like coulter. >> you're right it does back up their views. michael shure, do you think there is proof that zimmerman had a history of racial profiling to warrant an official investigation by the obama administration. >> evidence that was kept out of this trial would be evidence to support that whether it rises to the level of a hate crime

under the shepherd bird hate crime act is the question now. michael may a create point here. the tragedy is most clearly that a young boy is dead. there is nothing that we can do that is worse. if we're uncomfortable talking about this as a racist event we need to get over that. this was about race. the six members of that juror, which it should have been 12, knows it was about race. so does the american public. so stop pretending that it's not about race because that's the only way that this conversation can improve this. >> we'll move across the country to wyoming. michael tomasky. there has been a lot of news, a lot of speculation about elizabeth cheney swooping in and challenging the safe incumbent republican senator there mike enzi, a lot of buzz about that. but here's my question. isn't this move sneaky, absurd, a little bit of a cartoon, but

at one level isn't what democracy and contested elections are supposed to be about? >> yeah, sure. you know why not. she can run if she wants to. she doesn't have to be a long-time resident much wyoming to run in wyoming. there should be more challenges to incumbent senators. make them work. they're terrified. they raise a lot of money for election and they do everything they can to not have to face re-election. i would not be a loose cheney voter if i was a wyoming resident, by any stretch of the imagination, but i got no grudging about her seeking office. >> i want follow up on that. first, is there something good or revealing revealing about the primary challenge to republican tea party challenger. if liz cheney is a tea party

challenger, what would be the impact of having another cheney in the national government again? >> well, again that's unclear. first of all michael tomasky missed a golden opportunity when referring to wyoming resident to say a wyomingite. >> how did i do that. >> having a cheney back in the u.s. senate, back in the u.s. spotlight. liz cheney when she was a surrogate for her father when he was running for vice president twice was really hateful red rhetoric. and what is curious about this, david, and you and i spoke about it before, people like robert bennet of utah, and mike enzi of wyoming are looked at as some

how moderates because they're being attacked from the right. where in the world are these people mod raid? they're amongst the most conservative members of the senate. >> let's go from wyoming to texas, rick perry signed that state's restrictive abortion bill. the effects are very much happening. planned parenthood announced because of the bill's restrictions they were already forced to close three of their clinics, but democrats are proposing legal action from this bill. and michael tomasky, do you think it will be ruled unconstitutional? >> no, not with this supreme court, i don't. i don't know enough about the ins and outs of the laws to give a legal disposition on it, but i doubt it will be ruled unconstitutional. texas is way out there on these things, and of course, there is going to be a similar national effort not quite as draconian as the texas law but a similar law that marco rubio has signed on

to among other republicans. i don't think we're going to see the end of this. it's a little bit odd that a republican party that has suffered such a gender gap at the polls, and with all the todd aiken stories and those that have slow standing among many women that they'll were you sure these things, but pursue them, it is. >> i want to turn lastly to the qg profile that is creating buzz about joe biden. in the latest issue the vice president sporting aviators in a "style" magazine. it's perfect in the article. biden said quote i can die a happy man never having been president of the united states but it won't mean that i won't run. joe biden has run for president a couple of times before. do you think he has the chops to run this time around? >> he clearly has the chops as you said he has done it before.

it's something that he wanted for a long time. i think people thought when he was named vice presidential running mate, i think this might be his last shot. he i i don't think he'll run against hillary clinton. but has the chops and this new push we're going to see more of will focus on his intellect and his know-how roar than the character view of the vice president, even with the aviator glasses. >> michael tomasky what are your thoughts? joe biden for president in 2016? >> i think it's a reach. if hillary clinton runs she squeezes out him and a lot of other people. but it's also the fact that although i think he'd been a pretty good vice president his ratings, his approval ratings favorability ratings they really aren't that good, and they never really have been that

good on a national level. the unfavorables are higher than favorables to dip into political lingo, and i think he'll have a hard time, forgive this type of verb but rebranding himself into something that is more appealing. >> david, i want to know about you. do you think he can run? coming from your perspective in politics, do you think he could run and an viable candidate? >> i think if hillary clinton is not in the race i think he will run, and i think he would have a decent shot to win the democratic primary. would he have a shot to demeanor president of the united states? that's a tough call. michael tomasky, from the daily beast, thank you for being with us. michael shure will be with us: a 16-year-old boy was killed by a drone strike in yemen. the family has one question to the government is why?

one of their lawyers will join us right after this. minutes we're going to do the young turks! i think the number 1 thing than viewers like about the young turks is that were honest. they know that i'm not bsing them for some hidden agenda, actually supporting one party or the other. when the democrats are wrong, they know i'm going to be the first one to call them out. cenk on air>> what's unacceptable is how washington continues to screw the middle class over. cenk off air i don't want the middle class taking the brunt of the spending cuts and all the different programs that wind up hurting the middle class. cenk on air you got to go to the local level, the state level and we have to fight hard to make sure they can't buy our politics anymore. cenk off air and they can question if i'm right about that. but i think the audience gets that, i actually mean it. cenk on air 3 trillion dollars in spending cuts! narrator uniquely progressive and always topical the worlds largest online news show is on current tv. cenk off air and i think the audience gets, "this guys to best of his abilities is trying to look out for us."

only on current tv!

>> did anyone tell the pilgrims they should self-deport? >> no, they said "make us a turkey and make it fast". >> (laughter). >> she gets the comedians laughing. >> that's the best! >> that's hilarious. >> ... and the thinkers thinking. >> okay, so there is wiggle room in the ten commandments is what you're telling me. >> she's joy behar. >> ya, i consider you jew-talian. >> okay, whatever you want. >> who plays kafka? >> who saw kafka? >> who ever saw kafka? >> (laughter). >> asking the tough questions. >> chris brown, i mean you wouldn't let one of your daughters go out with him. >> absolutely not. >> you would rather deal with ahmadinejad then me? >> absolutely! >> (singing) >> i take lipitor, thats it. >> are you improving your lips? >> (laughter). >> when she's talking, you never know where the conversation is going to go. >> it looks like anthony wiener is throwing his hat in the ring. >> his what in the ring? >> his hat. >> always outspoken, joy behar. >> and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking?

>> only on current tv. >> david: earlier in the show we heard from trayvon martin parents. what would it feel like if your teenager was shot and killed. we'll look at another teenager who was killed while minding his own business, only this boy was killed by the united states government. he was blown to pieces in a drone attack by the united states military. he was sitting in an open air restaurant in southern yemen. six other civilian bystanders were killed including another teenage boy. born in my town of colorado. he moved to yemen when he was seven to live with his grandfather. his father was a clerk who was

reportedly on a c.i.a. and pentagon kill list as a suspect terrorist but never charged with a single crime. he was killed by an u.s. drone attack along with his aide, another u.s. american. that separate attack happened two weeks before the drone attack.attack. the rationale was that the targets were up to no good. the american civil liberties union filed against the government. tomorrow they'll be in court with oral arguments. we'll to go maria lahood, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us here in "the war room"," maria. >> thanks for having me.

>> there was an op-ed asking the question, the government has killed a 16-year-old american boy. shouldn't it have to at least explain why? can you explain the death of the american and how the government is blocking the case you're now pushing forward. >> the government here defiled our most fundamental rights. they cannot bewe're asking that the government be held accountable and why why was he was killed.

>> david: there is a fantastic movie where they travel to various countries including yemen where they investigate the assassination of anwar al awaki. what kind of over oversights exist? >> they were put on the kill list, laird after that, he was designated as a terrorist. we, the center for constitutional rights and the aclu brought a case on behalf of nasar al-aulaqi because of because

he was on the kill list for a year and a half, he was surveilled for weeks we think he was not an imminent threat. we brought that case but it was dismissed by the court at at time. and then later anwar al-au laqi was killed, and his son was killed in a strike as well. those were all drone strikes. they were essentially committed by our government in yemen. it could have been anywhere. if the government concedes that this is outside of hostilities it could have been london. there was a killing there in a restaurant. he was killed and his cousin was killed. >> david: i want to ask you

about "blocked by a court." people hear that and think it doesn't sound believable. how could a 16-year-old boy be killed by his own government? and the grandfather of that 16-year-old can't even go to court not to prosecute the people who killed him but can't go to court to find out the government's rationale. explain to us what the government's argument has been about block this case not even allowing it to bed a to be adjudicateed. >> in this case they concede that they killed these citizen there is no role for the court. the government also is issuing it's seen as white paper. they acknowledge that these citizens have fourth amendment rights. yet it argues that the executive under the constitution is the only branch of government allowed to make those decisions.

the judge is not allowed to rule on the legality of the strikes. but that's not true. it's the judiciary who has the role here and the duty to decide whether or not these killings were legal. and they also say national security, and the defendant's themselves claim that they have immunity no matter what they did. >> david: in "the new york times" op-ed that was published today. he was quote a typical teenager. he watched the simpsons, read harry bottler, heharry potter, he had a mop of curly hair and file. why isn't the public as outraged as it has

been in the trayvon martin case? >> well, first of all i think more people need to know about this, and i'm glad that the op-ed was published and hopeful hopefully more people will find out that the 16-year-old who was not alleged to have done anything wrong was killed by the united states government. i believe there are ear things in here, racism, where if it was john mill center london, maybe people would be more outraged, but now it's in yemen. that unfortunate. people unfortunately, defer to the government. neither were specifically targeted. they had nothing--they have nothing to say against them. of course they claim that anwar was a terrorist but they never charged him. they never even brought forth evidence.

you know, they made claims about what he has done. so i think that, you know, i do hope however the more people find out about who he was that he was a typical teenager, they will be similarly outraged. >> david: one last question, i want to talk about the legal precedence at issue. you mentioned that the government has said, that they're trying to get this case out of court. for people who say this doesn't affect me. it happened in yemen separating the immoralities of that kind of attitude, are there long-term legal precedence at issue here that if your case continues to be blocked that it will have future implications? >> absolutely. if the court here refuses to hear the case, the government has full immunity and impunity when it kills any u.s. citizen. it can just say no, you can't

hear it. it's for national security. it's our decision to make, as it has here and the court won't be able to review it. that is unacceptable. >> david: maria lahood, thank you so much for your time. up next are we finally paying more attention to what edward snowden revealed other than his soap opera trials.s travels. stick around. compelling true stories. >> jack, how old are you? >> nine. >> this is what 27 tons of marijuana looks like. (vo) with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines, way inside. (vo) from the underworld, to the world of privilege. >> everyone in michael jackson's life was out to use him. (vo) no one brings you more documentaries that are real, gripping, current.

if you believe in state's rights but still support the drug war you must be high. >> "viewpoint" digs deep into the issues of the day. >> do you think there is any chance we'll ever hear the president even say the word "carbon tax"? >> with an opened mind... >> has the time finally come for real immigration reform? >> ...and a distinctly satirical point of view. >> but you mentioned great leadership so i want to talk about donald rumsfeld. >> (laughter) >> cutting throught the clutter of today's top stories. >> this is the savior of the republican party? i mean really? >> ... with a unique perspective. >> teddy rosevelt was a weak asmatic kid who never played sports until he was a grown up. >> (laughter) >> ... and lots of fancy buzz words. >> family values, speding, liberty, economic freedom, hard-working moms, crushing debt, cute little puppies. if wayne lapierre can make up stuff that sounds logical while making no sense... hey, so can i. once again friends, this is live tv and sometimes these things happen. >> watch the show.

>> only on current tv. >> david: welcome back to "the war room." i'm davei'm david sirota. in in the days following the release of classified information about the nsa's massive data collecting operations. reactions in washington were mixed. officials from the fbi nsa justice department, and national intelligence office testified before an aaron house judiciary committee. >> if you're collecting information about my telephone when you shouldn't be doing that, that is an abuse even if you simply filed it and never used it. >> this met da tate da problem to me has gotten quite far out of hand. >> i have been in the former soviet union when it was--we can't use this word an more,

when it was communistic, when the everyone was and the surveillance of government when they said that we're doing this for national security reasons. that concerns me. >> david: the officials which included john english repeatedly said that it was approveed by courts, and one of the authors of the patriot act, jim sensenbrenner of wisconsin warned that the nsa's aggressive surveillance may jeopardize the patriot act when it comes up for renewal in 20132041. in 2014. >> unless you know there is a problem, that is not going to go renewed. there are the votes in the house of renew section 215, and then you have you're going to lose the business records access

provision of the patriot act entirely. it's got to be changes otherwise in two and a half years you're not diagnose to have it any more. >> david: you know it's bad when the architect of the patriot act feels it's being violateed. they should be outraged, and this is long overdue. >> first of all i didn't know you were allowed to say communistic any more. i didn't know that that was a thing. but it was very jarring. >> david: i didn't know you were ever able to say communistic. >> i did actually look it up to see if it was a word, and it's on one of those vague internet dictionaryies it was accepted. but the whole idea of edward snowden is what we're looking

at. he had yard snowden did what he z and then we're having this conversation here. so this conversation again doesn't happen if it's not for edward snowden. this is a victory. this is why people report these things. you see outrage on both sides. it doesn't matter what the reasons are. the republicans say they're afraid of losing the patriot act, so be it, but they're talking about it and democrats are outraged about the information being culled. >> david: i call to the snowden effect. the disclosures have created news unto themselves. let's talk more about edward snowden, edward snowden and glen greenwald has been attacked by disclosing this information. >> it's a defector or traitor.

what he has done is incredible damage to our country. he's going to put american lives at risk. i don't know how he can live with himself. >> the disclosure of this information puts americans at risk. it shows our adversaries what our capabilities are and it's a giant violation of the law. >> that's an awful statement that that reporter made, and the tone in which he made it. >> david: that last clip was carl bernstein reacting to a statement by the guardian's glen greenwald. the statement read, quote the u.s. government should be on their knees every day praying that nothing happens to snowden because if something happens all information will be revealed, and that would be their worst nightmare. how do you feel about glen greenwald's involvement in this. i think he has done a great public service, what is your

take on glen greenwald. >> i would not go as far as hero because he's reporter and he's doing his job. the fact that he's doing his job in this case does not make him a hero. some people will call him a hero just speaks to the condition of reporting and investigative reporting in this country. i know what you're saying, and i'm being knit picky about it. he has done a great job here. yes, there are some things that snowden did which i understand leaves people feeling uncomfortable, and also i should say for myself i just assume that most of these things were going on already. by the way peter king said he might run for president in 2016 and he said today that iowans will have to get used to his new jersey accent. he's probably using this as a

jumping off point about what the liberals are doing to the country. it's revealtory and it's bringing to light what happened here. >> david: president peter king would be president big brother. speaking of big brother let's talk about it more more realistically right now. mr. stop and frisk, ray kelly well-qualified to lead the department of homeland security. he has overseen the surveillance of the muslim community in new york city, the c.i.a. infiltration of the new york police department. do you think ray kelly head of the homeland security would be a good idea? >> i do not think so. even anything that is divisive right now this president doesn't need. as you mentioned yesterday you

brought up that he floated the name of ray kelly. you float a name not necessarily that you're going to nominate this person, but to see what people would do. ray kelly is not the person for this job. do you remember the new york police commissioner who was floated by bush to be the nominee, and then he went to jail? i think they should stay out of new york city when looking for director of homeland security. >> david: i agree. michael, we'll see new a little bit. up next, the indispensable watchdog of the big banks. matt taibbi of "rolling stone" magazine joins me right after this.

alright, in 15 minutes we're going to do the young turks. i think the number one thing that viewers like about the young turks is that we're honest. they know that i'm not bs'ing them with some hidden agenda, actually supporting one party or the other. when the democrats are wrong, they know that i'm going to be the first

one to call them out. they can question whether i'm right, but i think that the audience gets that this guy, to the best of his ability, is trying to look out for us. >> david: here's a riddle. what kind of business did these e-mails come from. lord help our [bleep] scam in this is the stupidest place i have ever worked at. and a gambling ring? the mafia? no those come from one of the most respected firms on wall street the ratings agencies standard & poor's. they have always been at their core what happened was simple. banks discovered they could make a lot of money selling mortgages to people who couldn't afford them.

normally a bank wouldn't do that because it's a bad idea. the person is probably not going to pay the mortgage back. the banks realized they could panelpackage the lousy mortgages together and sell them. agencies like s & p are and moodies is supposed to tell you how risky an investment is. a bundle of cruddy subprime mortgages should have a really low set of ratings but that's not what happened. they got triple-a's from these agencies. investors bought them all over the world. here is another e-mail from standard & poor's, quote let's hope we're all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters. that house fell. here's hoping the big house is still open. joining us now from new york is "rolling stone" reporter matt

taibbi. he wrote about the ratings agencies for the magazine last move. matt welcome to the war room. >> how is it going david? >> david: i'm good and thank thank you for being here and thank you for the reporting on this. i want to start with the ratings agencies. here is the question that i had that your story raised for me. and that it answered but i want you to tell us about it. a lot of people would look at this and ask why would the ratings agencyies rig their ratings? what insensitives did they have to rig those ratings? >> well, most people don't understand this, but the way the ratings agencies are compensated they're paid by the financial company that is making the product in question. so in the old days it was actually the customer that was paying a subscription fee to all of these agencies, and that was how they were compensated. now let's say goldman sachs or

morgan stanley wants to make a big package of mortgage-backed securities they create that product, and they are the ones who are paying the ratings agency. so it's in their best interest, the ratings agencies to give high ratings to their products because of course they want their customers to keep coming back to them, and giving them more money. that's what we saw in this story. >> david: these same rating agencies are still the corner of wall street as i understand it. >> right. >> david: should we trust anything that they rate? why should anyone anything that they rate? >> we absolutely should not trust anything that they rate. i think until they change this core conflict of interest that is in the business. this is what they call an issuer pays model. it's the people who are making the products that are compensating the ratings agencies. until they change that, there is no reason to believe any rating

that these agencies come up with because they're inherently conflicted. we need to come up with some kind of new model. the problem that we have is that these agencyies occupy a semi official status in the financial landscape. a lot of banks and financial companies have to have a certain portion of their portfolios be triple-a rated by these companies. they automatically get an enormous amount of business because all of these banks are mandated to get ratings from these companies. so we have this conflict of interest that essentially is baked into the whole system, which is a disaster. >> david: and this affects everybody not just the people on wall street. it doesn't just affect the macro-economy. wall street does badly and it hurts the rest of the economy. this does hurt regular people's retirements because pension funds, 401k managers, they rely

on those ratings. you assume that the managers of public pension funds or 401k programs that they know or have an inkling not to necessarily trust the ratings agencyies or you would hope that after the financial crisis, are they still relying on these rating agencies? do they have anywhere else to go? what are they supposed to do? >> well, i think prior to the crash there was a lot of naive todayteabout this. we saw the public pension funds, student loan funds a lot of them related entirely on these ratings. they didn't do a lot of due diligence themselves. that's changing since the crash. it has turned out a lot of things given triple-a ratings were, in fact, not triple-a. one of the problems that these public pension funds, they don't

have the resources to research every single loan and every single pool of mortgages or student loans that they're buying. they just don't have those resources. that's the function that the ratings agencies are supposed to perform. they're supposed to do a lot of that hard work. if we can't trust them then we're stuck in a quandary. >> david: it's so scare which for anyone looking at retirement and 401k, pension program that you're on, that your money people who are watching this show, their money not just wall street's money but their money is potentially at risk when the rating agencies are not delivering the right ratings because their pension funds and 401ks are connected to this. your article came out last month, has there been any movement since then to change this reform the system, is congress going to do anything? i would ask you also what should congress do? what could be done?

>> well, senator franken of minnesota came up with a bill that would sort of rearrange the system. it would essentially create a government agency that would assign ratings to the ratings agencies rather than the companies being compensated directly by these financial companies. they would have to go through a government middle man that would go through an assignment process to eliminate that conflict of interest. but that reform is on hold right now. there was a study. we're not there yet. there is an organic capitalist solution, which is to come up with a company that would produce ratings and be paid by the customer rather than the issuer. and there are some companies doing that, but they don't

occupy space in the market that these companies do. the big three s & p moodies and fitch's they occupy 88% of the market right now. >> david: i want to turn to the bradley manning trial. manning could face life in prison. this is the whistle blower, the wikileaks whistle blower. as a journalist who works with sources and relyies on leaks at times, what do you make of the media itself has covered of this trial? >> i think it's been awful and a disgrace. if you compare what has happened with bradley manning with what happened with daniel ellsberg back in the nixon era with the pentagon papers, this is really a free speech issue and media issue in a way. bradley manning should have major news organizations at his

side in this debate. the what the government did was cleave off all those news organizations that initially allied with him and found a way to try him separately for his alleged defenses. he is sort of standing alone here on the dock, and i think what is unfortunate about this is that the national media does not realize the implications of a guilty plea for bradley manning. if he can be tried and convicted for aiding and abetting the enemy for doing what is essentially whistle blowing in the purest sense of the word, then any one of us journalists could theoretically be charged with the same thing for reporting that kind of material. it's a chilling thing. it's really surprise to go me that more journalists have not caught onto the underlying meaning of this trial. >> david: i think it's commentary of where a lot of journalists are in thorough view

of adversaries to power or complicit to power. matt taibbi, it's always great to talk with you. thank you for being on the show. coming up, representative john lewis is at comicon. while you try to digest that statement, stick around. >> did anyone tell the pilgrims they should self-deport? >> no, they said "make us a turkey and make it fast". >> (laughter). >> she gets the comedians laughing. >> that's the best! >> that's hilarious. >> ... and the thinkers thinking. >> okay, so there is wiggle room in the ten commandments is what you're telling me. >> she's joy behar. >> ya, i consider you jew-talian. >> okay, whatever you want. >> who plays kafka? >> who saw kafka? >> who ever saw kafka? >> (laughter). >> asking the tough questions. >> chris brown, i mean you wouldn't let one of your daughters go out with him. >> absolutely not. >> you would rather deal with ahmadinejad then me? >> absolutely! >> (singing) >> i take lipitor, thats it. >> are you improving your lips? >> (laughter). >> when she's talking, you never

know where the conversation is going to go. >> it looks like anthony wiener is throwing his hat in the ring. >> his what in the ring? >> his hat. >> always outspoken, joy behar. >> and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking? >> only on current tv.

(vo) later tonight current tv is the place for compelling true stories. >> jack, how old are you? >> nine. >> this is what 27 tons of marijuana looks like. (vo) with award winning documentaries that take you inside the headlines, way inside. (vo) from the underworld, to the world of privilege. >> everyone in michael jackson's life was out to use him. (vo) no one brings you more documentaries that are real, gripping, current. >> david: time now to welcome back the real host of the war room, michael shure from

washington, d.c. and from los angeles, the important i'm told who is the actual brainchild behind the show, brett erlich. let's start with brett. what have you got for us? >> history has been made. first of all today i had my first mac macciato. delicious, you should try them. and secondly, this have voa. >> this nomination in the drama category are "breaking bad." "doyton abby." "game of thrones," house of cards." lead actor alec baldwin jason bateman, "arrested development." >> that's right two shows "arrested development" and

"house of cards" are both streaming on netflix, which is the streaming provider that has 29 million subscribers now, and they were honored as equals among the television set, which is completely unprecedented. do you watch those shows? >> absolutely. >> some of them, brett. and first of all congratulations on--i didn't hear the entire first part of your thing but ralph maccio. >> he was there. >> brett, did you get an emmy? i know you're being squeezed out because they're not giving many to tv. >> technically i have won an emmy part of current tv. back in the first years of current tv we won an emmy that they just showed up and they said now for an emyes we made emmy we made up

for television/internet, and i got to touch the emmy once, although i was not allowed to take it home. >> i'm a huge fan of those shows, and i think it's a great thing that they put them up as equals to television. what is television any more. everything is going over to cable. what else due have for us. >> comicon is the largest comic book slash graphic novel conference in the world. and normally people involved in comicon are warriors who fight space alien who is are taking over the world. but this year, john lewis an icon for the civil rights movement and you can buy it

now, "march book one." you can buy it for a little over $10 plus shipping, and it is the story of his life including the march on washington and the selma, montgomery marchs. >> i have to say about graphic novels. i'm torn about them. why don't people read regular books any more. but if pictures and a nice picture book and a lot of these are amazing illustrations, if they get people to read stuff he was about john lewis, it's a good thing. >> it's a completely different experience from reading your typical book. it's a mixture of what you would get from a television show or movie, and it's a more active experience because you have to go in and you look around, and the people who create these books and these graphic novels and these comic books are really accomplished people who are on all different sides of the media

environment. you have people who are filmmakers who come back and make their own books. and there are cross platform, you know, people who make a movie, and then they make a graphic novel version of it. >> i'm looking forward to seeing john lewis in a tight suit. >> yes he will be march man. it's funny, the reason why the story came out was lewis was inspired by an mlk graphic novel that came out in 1958. >> that makes sense. these things are inspirational. thank you bother. that's brett erlich and our beloved michael shure who returns to hosting duties on monday. thanks for joining us here. i'm david sirota.

>> if you believe in state's rights but still support the drug war you must be high. >> "viewpoint" digs deep into the issues of the day. >> do you think that there is any chance we'll see this president even say the words "carbon tax"? >> with an open mind... >> has the time finally come for real immigration reform? >> ...and a distinctly satirical point of view. >> but you mentioned "great leadership" so i want to talk about donald rumsfeld. >> (laughter). >> watch the show. >> only on current tv.

alright, in 15 minutes we're going to do the young turks. i think the number one thing that viewers like about the young turks is that we're honest. they know that i'm not bs'ing them with some hidden agenda, actually supporting one party or the other. when the democrats are wrong, they know that i'm going to be the first one to call them out. they can question whether i'm right, but i think that the audience gets that this guy, to the best of out for us.

♪ theme ♪ cenk: welcome to "the young turks." what's up? in a good mood. but as usual was disaster in the news. i would discuss that with my panel in a second. in california and other parts of the country yes we've got climate change. if you hadn't noticed wildfires in california have turned into raging infernos. at idle wild their palming springs, that gives you a sense of the amount of