they shot first and didn't ask questions. those were the cops. and in toronto, a younger guy gets shot. we have the video an that. >> john: boy, you know, i was kind of mad our tax dollars went to war crimes but i'm really mad bradley manning told us our tax dollars went to war crimes. wikileaks and bradley manning endangered the safety of our troops in war zones say the politicians who sent those troops into said war zones. we'll talk about the verdict. plus, i told the fisa court i was concerned about the government invading my privacy. they told me they already knew how i felt about it. congressman adam schiff talks about president obama's attempts to get the g.o.p. to do anything to help with the economy. plus, the top three reasons why the republican party should be supporting obamacare. today is the birthday of cinema great director peter mcdone vich who did the last picture

show. cinema great christopher nolan who did inception and the dark knight trilogy and arnold schwarzenegger who was not a cinema great but shows us what happens when you cheat on a kennedy. this is viewpoint. >> john: good evening, friends, i'm john fuglesang. welcome once again to "viewpoint" here on current tv. the first major wikileaks case by captivated the world has come to an end, sort of. army private bradley manning set off a firestorm when the trove of secret documents he released to wikileaks went public. he was acquitted of the most serious charge in the military court-martial, aiding the enemy. but the private is not out of the woods. manning was convicted of 20 of

the remaining 21 charges including six counts of espionage, five theft charges and other military violations. he will likely be in prison for decades so what will be the ripple effect of this verdict? well, let's ask people smarter than me. faiza patel and chase is author of "the passion of bradley manning" and contributor to the nation. pleasure to have you both back here on "viewpoint." let's dig in. faiza, what was your reaction to today's verdict? >> i was pleased to see that he was acquitted of the aiding the enemy charge because that would have been truly a travesty of justice. that charge should be about somebody who's actually trying to aid the enemy as opposed to somebody who puts information out into the public fear and might incidentally be of interest to the enemy. i was pleased to see that that charge was dismissed by the

judge. on the other charges, those are charges which don't actually require much more than bradley manning had already admitted to. so that was, i guess, less surprising that that happened. the other charge i think is really significant is the charge about the video in afghanistan and the fact that he was actually acquitted of that one particular piece of the charges against him. >> john: for those who don't know, this is a video that shows a reporter being killed by an apache helicopter. >> no, it is not that video. it is a different video. >> john: i'm sorry. >> there was a second video which related to the killing of some civilians in islam stand and the reason it is important is because the government tried really hard to show that bradley manning had released that video at an early point in time and that would have demonstrated that he was cahoots with wikileaks, in coming together to release these documents. very important piece of the government's case that fell apart in this verdict.

>> john: chase, any surprises for you? were you as surprised as i was that the aiding the enemy charge was thrown out? >> you know, i hate to come on all nate silver on you here but frankly, it is pretty much exactly what i would have predicted. the aiding enemy was wildly far-fetched and even in military court where ot things can happen, i did not think it was going to stick. i can't say i'm delighted by it because the espionage act charges are very severe. this was the first es -- es peenage where it has been argued film on the merits and it hasn't crumpled pretrial or turned into a trial. >> john: espionage for whom? it doesn't seem relevant in this case. >> this is an antiquited statute from world war i. it was nerve intended as an english-style official secrets act. that was wonderful man, richard nixon who repurposed the act as

a weapon against daniel ellsberg, white whale, his nemesis and that case crumpled in the end because of the criminality and illegality of the nixon administration's pursuit of ellsberg. >> john: fay is faiza, what do you think happens for manning? >> i think there are a lot of steps before prisons for decades. he will have his sentencing hearing which starts tomorrow. the government has a list of witnesses, most of whom has declined to reveal their identities and bradley manning -- put on witnesses that demonstrate he had good motive and all of that would be considered by the judge in deciding how much time he actually gets. so that's one step. after that, there are several appeals that are available to manning as long as he has a sentence of over six months which seems highly likely. a dishonorable discharge from the military, then it gets an automatic review by the convening authority. after that, there is an appeal

to a specific appellate court and then he can also take it up to the supreme court. so there is a long way to go before this case is finally finished. >> john: i would like to read you both a tweet that someone sent to my twitter page. i would like to share. ken struck wrote... i hear you, ken. chase, what do you think? >> i'm going to bitch, ken. >> john: please, bitch away. >> it's true that privates who buck the system are likely to get scapegoated. i think in case, bradley manning is being scapegoated for the entire iraq war. we never prosecuted the architects of the war. certainly the c.i.a. or their lawyers but finally, we found a fall guy, the elijah cook jr. role if you're into really old, obscure movies like i am. and they've got him. i don't think it is a good thing though. military discipline is important but it should not be the supreme

value in any free country. >> john: i think we can all agree though, i've had a hard time understanding why it is so hard for people to chew gum and walk mentally on this issue. what he did was a violation of the law and he deserves to do time for it, at the same time, he revealed crimes the perpetrators of which aren't going to see any time. that's the outrage. am i mistaken, faiza? >> that's right. our laws don't deal with that conflict. the idea that you know, you can do a good thing and a bad thing at the same time. so we have very heavy penalties for all of the disclosures. that's why the guy is facing 100 plus years in jail. >> john, i'm not going to walk or chew gum on this one. i think he does not deserve to do a day more time than he's already done and i think anyone who knows u.s. history will admit that there is a time and a place for civil disobedience against the law, to break the law. i don't think that gay couples that went on a hot date 50 years

ago somehow got away with something and are bad people because they broke the law. i'm not even going to get started about our history of racism, legally codified in this country. so i think what he did was a great public service. just like ellsberg, he deserves to be a free man. >> john: i'm glad you brought up the time already served. he spent a huge amount of time in solitary confinement which many sane people say is torture. should manning's treatment, subsequent convictions today be seen as a warning to any future whistle-blowers or journalists? >> absolutely. i think that's the point, isn't it? when the government goes after somebody in such an aggressive way. so aggressively. i think the message they're sending is don't try to do this. but i do think the fact that the judge did dismiss the aiding the enemy charge is an important piece because if she had upheld

that charge, that would have meant that any media outlet that published leaked information would be equally guilty of aiding the enemy. that is one small silver lining in this. >> john: chase, how would you distinguish private manning's case from mr. snowden's case? >> really flip sides of the same coin. two 20 something young men who have been doing the nuts and bolts work of national security. either eyebrowed, deployed in iraq, in the military or doing national security work, surveilling people's e-mails and conversations. it is critical that we listen to the real message that we're getting from these young people because what they're saying has not been heavily processed by legal departments, by spin doctors, it's the raw truth of what is actually going on in the name of national security, a lot of it's not pretty. i think we need to start -- stop chanting the words 9-11 like it's some magic charm that can justify anything no matter how foolish.

quit the hysterics and come back to our senses by listening to the brave, young people. >> john: i think right now, presumably edward snowden is sitting in a moscow airport, orange julius week after week after, there is probably no one looking at the case more keenly than he. he's used the treatment of private manning as a major force for his arguments for asylum. what effect, faiza, do you think today's convictions will have on the snowden case? >> i don't think it is going to give snowden any comfort because i think manning is still facing a very large amount of time. i think, you know, one piece of it will become more clear once the judge issues her sentence. that will also tell us how the military judge is viewing what manning did and how she's actually taking account of his motive. that's important. but i don't think the verdict in this case will make snowden leave moscow airport and come home. >> john: i think it will take a lot more than that. in this case, chase, does it seem to you like it's time now that we have a movement for real

reform and a real set of standards for how whistle-blowers and leakers are to be treated? >> yeah, it is high time for that conversation. and i think the snowden affair has been terrific for bradley manning and his long-term prospects because it has forced a reconsideration inside both patients which are bitterly split on these issues to rethink the fundamentals on what's the greater risk. is it extreme levels of secrecy and surveillance or is it somehow not enough? >> john: should government officials who blow the whistle on their government employers be protected by the first amendment? and what government would ever allow that? is that feasible to see? >> i think what is infeasible is whistle-blower reform. we do have laws that deal with regular whistle-blowers. if you come across unsafe conditions on your worksite. you can report that. you're protected when you do that because your employer can't fire you. when it comes to national security, however, we have a very different regime which is

much less protective of national security whistle-blowers, particularly people in the military are not covered, people in national security functions, most of them are not covered either. so that clearly needs to be reformed. i think more broadly, you know, the laws under which manning has been charged, the espionage act provisions carry really heavy sentences and the government can just pile them on one after another, based on basically the same conduct. we have to think about how those kinds of -- might be mitigated by the intent of the person more specifically. >> john: do you feel that today's rulings helped harden the line between whistle blowing and espionage? is it going to be harder to accuse a whistle-blower of espionage in the future because of what we've a seen today. >> i think you have to be careful of accuse a whistle-blower of espionage. it has a bunch of provisions. they're not all espionage. when you think of espionage, you think of something like treason,

deliberately giving information -- >> john: the falcon and the snowman selling secrets to the russians for money and he's out now. he escaped from federal prison. he's out. bradley manning may wind up doing more time than he did and he was a spy. >> the closest to espionage with which he was charged was aiding the enemy. that's the one he was acquitted on. so the other provisions while they're part of the espionage act and we can talk about whether that's appropriate, are really more about disclosure of classified information or theft in one form other another. >> john: chase, where do you think this is going to take us as a country? >> i think it is taking us to distopian secrecy. what bradley manning released is not 1% of the documents released last year. yet there is panic about opening the floodgates. bradley manning did not opponent floodgates. it is just a trickle of important information of which we've been starved. i think that national

cluelessness has been a very bad strategy in foreign affairs and military affairs for the united states. we've shed great deal of blood and burned up a great deal of money. not to mention inflicting incredible misery because we were clueless, because we made poorly-informed decisions. that's why i think bradley manning's leaks are a gift to the world and above all, to the united states. >> john: i thank you both for your expertise on this issue. faiza patel is codirector of the liberty and national security program for the brennan center for justice. chase madar is author of the passion of bradley manning and a contributor to the nation. we'll eagerly look forward to what happens in the sentencing tomorrow. >> yes, we will. >> john: thank you. stick around because big things are happening in washington. i'm just kidding. of course. they do less than the human appendix but stick around.

cenk off air alright in 15 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 abilities is trying to look out for us." only on current tv!

>> john: today was a big day in american history, a day many middle class americans have been waiting for since the president took office. real progress on the jobs front or was it just another speech. well, maybe not. in what has been dubbed the grand bargain, president obama laid down his plan. >> obama: so, again, here's the bottom line. i'm willing to work with republicans on reforming our corporate tax code as long as we use the money from transitioning to a tax system for a significant investment in creating middle class jobs. that's the deal. [ applause ] >> john: republicans are already scoffing. is there anything for them to bite at? will the president get any real reform accomplished before his term ends? and before the 2014 midterms. here to answer this and many other important questions, we're thrilled to be joined by the one and only congressman adam b. schiff representing the 2k-8th congressional district of the great state of california. what a pleasure to have you with us on "viewpoint."

>> it is great to be with you. >> john: what do we think? a great speech leading nowhere or do you think this time there might be actual potential for some -- >> for the sake of the country, i hope it leads to somewhere. there are a lot of people still hurting as you know out there. for most americans, the economy has been and continues to be the top issue, the top concern that americans have for their families and their future. i'm glad the president is out there and thinking creatively and trying to engage the other side. trying to make progress. i hope it is reciprocated. the early signs though are not encouraging. republicans even without learning details of the president's proposal are already trying to shut it down and it has unfortunately become the nature of the opposition here that is very he will -- reflexive. anything the president is for has to be, by definition, a bad idea. we have to get beyond that dynamic. the american people are counting on it. it is excruciatingly frustrating

for those of us in congress who came here to get things done, to see the economy trying to recover, taking steps toward recovery but yet the congress remains the biggest obstacle. >> john: indeed. many americans, as you know in the same community were shocked in 2011 that this president could pitch a jobs plan that was 60% tax cuts and still have the republicans kill it on the floor of the house. he has pitched corporate tax changes before but will tax reform be a motivator to get republicans to work together with democrats and maybe even help some of their constituents? do you think this is the carrot we've been waiting for? >> i hope so. there are two factions in the g.o.p. that have been at war with each other. you have the faction that wants corporate tax reform to kind of mainstream pro business republicans in the republican conference and then you have the tea party republican base which is very large in the house and their primary concern, if not only concern is really with attacking deficit and debt,

defunding the government. so the part of the president's bargain which would apply to the savings we get from this tax reform to investments in infrastructure, investments in education rather than simply this austerity plan of using everything to pay down deficit and debt is going to run into trouble with those tea party members. so it will require leadership from the g.o.p. which we haven't seen really in the house. the speaker unfortunately has had to be at the beck and call of a lot of the tea party activists but on this issue, as on immigration, as on a whole variety of issues, you could have a very bipartisan coalition of the mainstream members of the g.o.p. conference and with democrats but it would probably be a minority g.o.p. vote. >> john: i think you're right, congressmen. our tea party friends have been outraged about deficits since january 1, 2009. you splay heard this already, sir, but an nbc "wall street journal" poll released last wednesday found american's disapproval of congress has

reached unprecedented levels. according to the survey, 83% of citizens disapprove of the job congress is doing in d.c. only 12% approve of congress's job. i think cannibals on bath salts have higher numbers while 57% said they would replace every member of congress if they could. my question to you, sir, you're one of the smartest men out there in the congress. do polls like this have any impact on your colleagues? does it hurt them? do any of your colleagues care when they see how despised they are by the american people? >> first, you're giving me way too much credit but i thank you for it. but in terms do the members care about what the poll numbers say, many of us do. i certainly do. but there is a large contingent that really only cares about tearing the government down, that didn't come here to govern, never made the transition to being a governing party. there are so many gerrymandered districts among the red states that their only concern they have is not in the general election that voters will be fed up and throw them out but that they won't attack sufficiently

to the right and they'll face a tea party challenge. this is, unfortunately, the place that we're in. where the general election for a great many members is not an issue and you have the proliferation of the very conservative super pacs that are targeting mitch mcconnell because they say he's not conservative enough. you can imagine how tough that will be to get him to make any kind of responsible deal with the president if he has to guard his right frank and that's exactly why they're doing it. so you have -- the nature of campaign finance now that makes it very hard but a lot of those members simply don't care about the overall public polls. they only care about what the polling is like within that narrow conservative base that they have to answer in their party primary. >> john: of course, sir, we all know if it weren't for compromise, we would have never gotten the declaration of independence signed. they seemed to have lost all site of what government is supposed to do. i hate to ask but is there something democrats haven't thought of yet? that they could do that would better build a bridge with our

recalcitrant republican friends? >> well, you know, i wish there were something that we coulder stumble upon or divine but i think the president has really made effort after effort, many of us in congress have tried to do the same thing but that assumes that the other side has the same motivation and while it is true of a great many members in the g.o.p., in the house, they're not in the majority. so that makes governance very difficult. we've seen in the senate, they were able to get to the essence of tough issues like immigration reform. but the house is a wholly different animal. that has been a very frustrating factor that the house has given up a role in legislating. it's only a question of whether we're willing to pass what comes out of the senate and all too often, the answer to that question is even "no." so we have to find a way to break the law. democrats have to find a way to try. we have to be right about it. the challenge is extraordinary in the house. >> john: before we go, sir, one of the reasons why you're one of the smart ones is i

understand you're working on another piece of legislation to create a special privacy advocate who would appear in front of the fisa court. can you tell us about that? >> sure. i think there are a number of reforms that would improve the fisa court. some would involve declassifying significant fisa court opinions, the american people have a much better sense of what that court is deciding. others would change the way we appoint justices or judges to the fisa court. right now, the chief justice of the supreme court appoints them all and as a result, it is not a very diverse group. 10 of the 11 judges were appointed by republican presidents so i have legislation that would require presidential nominations, senate confirmation of those judges and then finally, as you point out, one of the key issues in the fisa court is they would really benefit from having the advice of opposing counsel. having opposing counsel that can point to potentially contrary case law, a number of the retired fisa court judges are coming forward now to suggest this would be a positive reform

and i hope to introduce a bill later this week that would use the privacy board to create a pool of attorneys that can be appointed, that can be given the security clearances necessary to provide that adversarial process in the fisa court as a former prosecutor, i think that adversarial process really lends to a better result, more informed court opinion and i think would enjoy more public confidence as well. >> john: from your lips, sir, congressman adam b. schiff of california's 2k-8th congressional district. many thanks to you for coming on "viewpoint." >> a pleasure. >> john: up next, another cautionary tale about sharing too much on the internet. this time, it is a reporter in alabama. ç]

(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. >> john: now, so that hatched. we briefly indulge our collective craving for shiny things. last week, shea allen, intrepid reporter at channel 31 in huntsville, alabama, was fired for giving her social media pals for the lack of glamor behind the curtain of modern media. >> many of you might be wondering what exactly does a journalist do on a friday? on a friday, i wait. for a live shot where i'm going to talk about nothing. nothing at all. i'm actually going to be live for a minute and a half where i talk about the facts that nothing happened. this is me sitting in my car,

waiting to do a story about nothing. and getting paid less than most mcdonald's managers. >> john: where does one begin? there are two ways to lose your job in media? number one, tell the unabashed truth. note to self. number two, take a job at current tv. i can say that. what are they going to do? fire me in two and a half weeks? she told about her profession and faced the consequences. like an extremely low stakes bradley manning. absolutely no one needed to know the hidden truths she felt compelled to reveal. like how in this video she revealed she's often gone braless on the air and she can't do stories involving old people because they scare her. full disclosure, i go brauless so shea, not impressed. i'm with you on the elderly thing. staring into the horry spector of your ho mortality trying to

get through an elephant who escaped from a mascot stadium. that's tough. shea, there is the media and then social media where you posted this stuff. underwear factory burns down. that's a story. i'm not wearing any underwear, not a story. but hey, pope francis likes to say, who am i to judge. coming on to me all the time now. (vo) she gets the comedians laughing and the thinkers thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. you would rather deal with ahmadinejad than me. >>absolutely. >> and so would mitt romney. (vo) she's joy behar. >>and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking?

>> john: welcome back to "viewpoint." i'm very happy to do a show where i can cover segments like this next one. if you have a parent or a loved one in an assisted living facility, please pull up a chair because they've become a billion dollar business here and the drive for costs has reportedly led to some major care issues. now, pbs is highly respected and wonderful series front line and propublica conducted a year-long investigation into emeritus senior living. their memory care program sounds like a medically supervised facility for those suffer from dementia or alzheimer's.

it is not. please listen for a moment to their training requirements. >> they're going to go through general orientation which everybody in the community would go through and then we have an eight-hour class. that's really where we cover everything from disease process to how we serve a meal slightly differently to folks who have dementia to how to engage, how to approach, how to communicate, overcoming communication barriers at times. >> eight hour intro is the minimum. >> that's our company standard. >> eight hours? that's nothing! >> john: now, that's not even the most shocking interview in the documentary. life and death in assisted living premieres tonight on fine pbs station and online. propublica will be publishing a multipart series on their web site all week long. a.c. thompson is the front line correspondent and propublica reporter, he conducted the investigation and joins us this evening from california.

mr. thompson, welcome to "viewpoint." >> thanks for having me on. >> john: great to you have, sir. we should note that emeritus is not alone. there are widespread concerns about the entire industry. what were the biggest problems you came across? >> you know, we saw the same problems over and over again in state after state. we saw issues where the eight hours of training thatter they'e talking about in the clip, people didn't get the legally required training to work with residents with dementia and other problems. we saw understaffing, facilities that didn't have enough staff. that facility, we did that interview in was cited by the state of california for not having enough workers. we saw medication errors, people getting the wrong drugs, getting other people's drugs, getting too high of a dose of drugs. those kind of problems over and over again. and you know, we saw very sad stories about seniors, for example, seniors with dementia wandering off from the facilities and dying. one woman dying, freezing to death on christmas morning in

front of the facility. >> john: i'm shocked as someone who spent years in special ed., i know that you don't let that sort of thing happen, letting people wander off. i would like to take a moment and define assisted living if we could. how does that term differ from the terms nursing homes or skilled care facilities or retirement communities? >> right, so assisted living is in between the nursing home and your personal home. it is right in the middle. so a nursing home is going to have around-the-clock medical care, federally regulated. it is going to have doctors and nurses hanging out all the time. when you go on your own home, obviously you don't have that. an assisted living facility has some of the stuff you get in a nursing home. it might have a nurse. might have some folks helping you take medications, helping you with your basic needs, eating, using the bathroom, getting dressed, but it is not going to have the level of regulation that a nursing home does. it won't have the level of staff that a nursing home does.

>> john: you mentioned what happened with one of the patients you investigated earlier. there was a major issue with the specific case in the ridgeland point facility in mississippi. a woman was admitted because she suffered from dementia. and nine days after being admitted, her daughter got a terrible phone call, for our viewers, please take a look. >> the lady identified herself and said your mother got out. i said what do you mean she got out? she said she went out the window. i said she went out a second story window? she said yes. is she breathing, is she alive? >> she's on the ground crawling around, she won't get up. >> we probably got there in less than ten minutes. as a matter of fact, they were still putting her in the ambulance when we got there. there was not one living soul from ridgeland point out there with her. nobody from ridgeland point ever came outside and said anything to us. nobody expressed any regret because they never walked out the front door. we never saw them. >> john: to me, this is where it gets political. this is why we have government.

how are they allowed to operate without strict requirements to make sure there's adequate supervision? >> you know, what we found across the country is a lot of states, mississippi is one of them, first off, give very little information to consumers over the web and so when consumers are considering moving in, mom or dad or moving into one of the facilities themselves, they don't have a lot of information unless they go to the state and say hey, can you give this paper report to me? california is the same way. but another thing that we saw over and over again was that when these fatalities happen, when tragedies happen that can be prevented, the states don't seem to have a lot of will, a lot of times to come down on these companies. in the case of meryl, they did not penalize emayor taos for her death. you have to move the memory care unit down to the first floor but they didn't cite the company. i believe there are regulations under which they could have.

in other case, in california, the typical fine in a death, in a death because of negligence or another error will be $150. >> john: the ceo of emeritus told you on camera that sometimes isolated cases of awful things happen because they have 27,000 people taking care of 40,000 residents. when do you the math and realize that's three shifts a day, it is not quite as comprehensive as the numbers sound. what do you say to that defense, sir? >> part of it is i'm not totally sure where those numbers come from. they may be accurate but when we visited the facilities, when we talked to people who work in these facilities, they describe scenes more like this. like one person, two people, a few people working on a shift. not lots of folks. and you know, for example, in a trial that occurred in northern california, the testimony in the trial, the documents produced in the trial was that in one of the memory care units, there was nobody on staff on certain

nights. in the memory care unit where the woman died in texas, there was one person on duty, on staff according to police reports. that's more the kind of thing we've heard about. >> john: tonight, 48 years to the day after president johnson signed the social security amendments into law which provide for medicaid and medicare. i don't know if you know about that coincidence but i would like to ask before we go, what should people look for and what are some warning signs when they seek to place an elder loved one into a care facility like this? >> you know, i hate that it has to be like this. i hate that people have to act like investigative reporters but that's what they need to do. in states where you can get detailed inspection data online from your state regulators, you need to look at it. 1999 states like mississippi or my great state, california, where you can't, you need to go to the state offices. i know that's a pain but you need to do that. because when you look at these records, you may well find things that you should be aware of and that will influence your decision.

>> john: what state office is that folks should go to? >> that's where it gets tricky. it is often different state regulators. here in california, department of social services. in some other states, it will be the department of health. but you need to look around on the state web site and figure out first, who the regulating agency is. >> john: wow, the seniors need a much greater advocacy in congress. a.c. thompson is a propublica reporter. his film, life and death in assisted living is essential if you care about an old person or plan to be old yourself, it premiers on pbs stations. >> thanks for having me on. >> john: absolutely. up next, a west wing actress whose most important role may have just come off-screen. we'll fill you in next. >> 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.

this show is about analyzing, criticizing, and holding policy to the fire. are you encouraged by what you heard the president say the other night? is this personal, or is it political? a lot of my work happens by doing the things that i'm given to doing anyway, by staying in touch with everything that is going on politically and putting my own nuance on it. in reality it's not like they actually care. this is purely about political grandstanding. i've worn lots of hats, but i've always kept this going. i've been doing politics now for a dozen years. (vo) he's been called the epic politics man. he's michael shure and his arena is the war room. >> these republicans in congress that think the world ends at the atlantic ocean border and pacific ocean border. the bloggers and the people that are sort of compiling the best of the day. i do a lot of looking at those people as well.

not only does senator rubio just care about rich people, but somehow he thinks raising the minimum wage is a bad idea for the middle class. but we do care about them right? >> john: so as long as artists have been around, there have also been entertainers who make political statements. just look at the court gestures of old. the only character king lear trusts is the fool. what role do artists have in our current political climate in terms of speaking out. some say great, some say shut up and sing looking at laura ingraham. our next guest has been political on screen and off. melissa fitzgerald starred as carol fit patrick from 1999 to 2006 but he's been an outspoken activist for years including her recent film after koni staging hope. take a look.

>> you have all worked so hard and today, we have an opportunity to share all of that with an audience. >> john: melissa fitzgerald, welcome to "viewpoint." >> hello. thank you very much. >> john: it is great to you have here. as someone who's been a fan for a long time, i want to start with this documentary. a lot of people know about koni because of the big 2012 kony campaign and since the founder's well publicized meltdown in san diego, it seems like the issue has tragically fallen off a lot of americans' radar. the focus on kony has died down. where does your documentary pick up? >> our documentary is basically

american actors go to northern uganda to work with 14 teenagers, all displaced from their homes, about half have been former abducted sex slaves who escaped and signed up to participate in a theatre program with a bunch of americans in sharing that with their community. that's what the documentary is. the reason it is called after kony is because they survived the brutality that they suffered, some of them in the bush and all of them in internally displaced persons camps where they were living at the height of insurgency, 80% of northern you on uganda was dispy this rebel warlord. what's really amazing is that it wasn't on the radar, internationally, at all. and you know, there's a lot of controversy about kony 2012 and about jason but ultimately, what i have to say about that is thank you to them for bringing it into homes for, you know, introducing young people to activism and getting involved in doing something. and you know, i am, for one,

really grateful to them for all that they've done for this cause and this issue. >> john: how is jason doing? >> i spoke with someone at invisible children, the organization, yesterday. he's back at work and full time and he's doing really well. >> john: you worked really hard to help pass the lri disarmament northern uganda recovery act which resulted in president obama sending military advisors over to africa. so it sounds great. but what impact is that having on the ground right now? >> huge. i talked to someone in you on ua yesterday, senior policy person who has been there and i asked him that very question. because we worked really hard on the lra disarmament uganda recovery act and it had more bipartisan cosponsors than any other legislation in 2010. we had a lot of hope about that. i said what have been the results. his answer was that has been a game changer. and we just -- removed two senior level commanders from the field. one of them was killed and one

of them defected. ultimately, what needs to happen is kony needs to be captured and his top commanders do, as well. because otherwise, he can re-up. >> john: of course. >> invisible children has just launched a campaign called zero lra and if you log on to invisiblechildren.com, you can send a letter to your congressperson and say sign the letter to president obama to keep our military advisers there because all of the ground that we have gained, it could potentially be lost if they're removed. >> john: are people surprised when you come in as a tv actor and you're smart and know all of this stuff? because conventionally, there is this impression that actors are dumb folks or the flip side of the coin is they don't want to hear it. you'll always hear conservatives telling the dixie chicks to shut up and artists shouldn't voice their opinions. a lot of lib berals think ted nugent should do the same. i don't because i'm a comedian. when you think about it, whatever side of the aisle

they're on, i think is a positive. what do you think about it? >> i'm a citizen. these are issues care about. i think all citizens should get involved and speak out. if we're not fighting for the things we care about, what are we doing? >> john: a lot of people say celebrities shouldn't speak out so much on the issues. i think normal people should speak out more. >> i agree with you 100%. >> john: you've done a lot on o gun control with form other governor rendell specifically regarding background checks. >> i went back to pennsylvania and spoke at a rally supporting universal background checks in pennsylvania. and i didn't realize because i think it was a last-minute thing but it ended up being an open carry, there were protestors there. their job was to shout us down. it was only supporting universal background checks. >> john: 90% of americans support. >> that's right. i think each and every one of them would have passed a background check so why were they there carrying big guns,

intimidating us and so afraid of hearing what we had to say? >> john: because the nra sells fear and tells them that background checks means obama will take your guns away, skeeter. >> that's right. >> john: i'm so impressed with all that do you. the wonderful melissa fitzgerald, good luck to you. >> thank you so much. >> john: and up next in the f bomb, the top three reasons republicans should be the ones supporting obamacare, you know, besides the fact it was originally a republican proposal and all. stick around. now. (vo) she gets the comedians laughing and the thinkers thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. you would rather deal with ahmadinejad than me. >>absolutely. >> and so would mitt romney. (vo) she's joy behar. >>and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking?

>> john: congressional republicans congrations, no jobs bill, no plan to help the working class and no agenda beyond repealing obamacare for the 40th attempt before it could risk helping any americans. but i know you guys hate the affordable care act. on some levels, i agree with you. it does have improvements but if this thing were any more watered down, it would be a bottle of o'doul's. it doesn't reform a system that makes employers have to pay for insurance. the public option is as dead as disco but it is a friend. it will save american lives, help with the deficit and in a few decades, the bumbling democrats may turn us into something we should be proud of and it should have been you. you republicans would have called it the freedom care and long-term american strength and stability act of act. hannity will be waving the flag. come on! you think the democrats could have passed a public option better than you? they're like clark kent without a phone booth.

you republican would have rammed this through before john bain her a chance to weep in public, i think that's weeping. he could be secreting fanta from his eyes. it represents many of the core values you say you believe in. number one, if you're afraid of competition. you're not really a capitalist. why would fans of free market deny consumers a choice of a way to slash down prices and slashes the deficit? what about cheaper canadian drugs or exchanges that allow the consumer to kick the tires on different health care plans and see what's right for them. you didn't do that. you called it socialist. it's not. socialist healthcare is what you guys in congress have. don't tell me it's bad for insurance. saying a private option hurts public be insurance is like saying community college threaten the ivy league. if you don't want to save american lives, you're not a patriot. the care of human life and happiness is the first and only object of good government. i know jefferson was probably a kenyan. i think we can agree that saving

american lives is what patriotism is all about. 45 thowfsz your fellow americans die because they can't get coverage. number one cause of bankruptcy is inability to pay healthcare costs. iraq would cost $2.4 trillion over ten years. projected costs of a public be option came in at $1.2 trillion. i went to public school but i'm sure that's half the cost. saves far more american lives than iraq and doesn't make anyone want to kill us. number three, if you guys don't want to help the sick, it's time to stop calling yourselves christian. you hear me, republicans? obama's not some brown-skinned anti-war socialist trying to give away free healthcare. you're thinking of jesus. this doesn't apply to all of you republicans, only those who wave their christianity in my face like a rainbow flag on gay day. commands his followers to help cure the sick. luke 4:40, the good samaritan ended up paying bills out of pocket. if you believe in using your tax

dollars to help the sick, that's a government based on christian values, not iraq war but it's not too late to save healthcare reform from them. you've got the power and the organization. you've got your own 24/7 cable news network on tv. your party has a fringe to channel their anger. yes, you would lose millions in insurance company campaign donations. if it had been you, the public option would be law right now and americans would hold you up as heros and they would be right, too. i almost forgot the biggest reason to support obamacare. it is actually your plan. the heritage foundation concocted the mandate and the guy you voted for last year, romney made it law in massachusetts. he called a mandate a penalty when he did it and a tax when obama did it. fox didn't tell you that? it is a republican plan, obamacare is which is why so many liberals objected to it. you supported it when mitt did it but not when obama did it and the only difference, romney

care, which you liked, covers abortions. that's our show, thank you for joining us, this is "viewpoint." this is current. we're still here. ten more shows. good night, mom. >> joy: there is a new book called what do women want. it suggests women are just as horny as men but are they just as piggish about it? that's what we want to know. the author of what do women want, daniel burg na. also joining the panel, relationship expert siggy slicker and my pal chuck nice is here to add a little love to the conversation. okay. let's start with this one point that women, you suggest in the book that women are not monogamous. it