♪ neil: good evening, everybody. thank you for being with us. as we go through the day's events and developments, it may help us to remember we're all in this together. there is a lot to cover tonight. with the white house and this president engulfed in scandals, trust is noo unexpectedly eroding in the administration. it may have rendered him a lame duck before his time. his desire for relevance may be frustrated the remainder of his term. the cutting consequences of this president's toxic leadership style are much in evidence tonight. consider this. his approval rating dropped another point overnight. it does remain at 47%. business confidence measured by

the jobs that business leaders create is weak. even in the fifth year of the economic recovery. depending on whether you support this president or don't, his appointments ambassador susan rice and samantha power to the post rice holds are bold, deft strokes by a president intent on not adding an outsider to the inthere circle avoiding a confirmation process for the unpoll pew lar rice, or as political opponents see it, not deft, but desperate, and likely to bring unreleapting pressure on mr. obama and his white house that has now managed to stone wall on benghazi, the internal revenue service, assaults on the first amendment. here is the president today naming ambassador rice to the top nationaa security post in his administration. >> as our ambassador to the u.n., susan has been a tireless

advocate in advancing our interests. >> i'm deeply graftful for your enduring confidence in me. we have much still to accomplish on behalf of the american people, and i look forward to continuing to serve on your national security team to keep our nation strong and safe. lou: yes, she is the same rice who aggressively spearheaded the obama administration's stone wall and benghazi. going on five sunday talk shows to falsely blame the attacks on protests over an anti-muslim video instead of blaming it on al-qaeda. critics say susan rice outright lied to the american public, and at best, provided misleading information. either way, president obama is losing the trust of the american people. it couldn't be clearer that mr. obama's nomination today means that he's closing ranks,

pre well, may be a protracted, debilitating, political and legal confrontation. the outcome of which may be his principle legacy as president p. this is no longer the presidency of hope and change. this is a white house now dug in against its critics and fauxes. a new, bc poll shows at least 55% of americans think each of the white house scandals raises doubts about the administration's honesty and integrity. there is a high price to pay for those doubts. for more on the president's controversial appointments today, turning to the chief white house correspondent, ed henry, with our report. >> president obama's second term charm offensive with the republicans took a detour in the rose garden today. by partisan outreach gave way to defiance as tom resigned replaced with susan rice, the

one blocked from elevation to secretary of state over benghazi. >> this team of people has been dedicated to america. they have made america safer. >> reporter: republicans beg to differ saying rice got a post that does not require senate cop fir mages because she ducks questions about the five sunday talk shows. >> she was used, via the talking points or come police sit in the drafting of the talking points, and it's not asking too much she answer the questions before she offer herself for promotions for something as important as national security adviser. reporter: carney insisted it was preliminary information and double down on the idea that the mistakes came from the intelligence community. >> the most qualified foreign policy experts in america. if that's the case, how did she get the information on benghazi so wrong many >> i welcome the opportunity to correct the record for some news outlets who

persist on misrepresenting the facts. the central contested point that was made on those sunday shows was drafted in the first instance and in every instance thereafter by the cia. >>they teed out of for not explaning the role in the private reaction to the benghazi terrorist attack. >> it's not just what was said on tv that sunday, but the fact that tom was the key individual in the white house and probably in my opinion the one most likely to have been the architect of changing what the cia started to say to what ended up being what susan rice did say. reporter: colleagues described him as a tireless public servant saying the change is vaned cation for rice who expressed loyalty to the president. >> i'm deeply grateful for your enduring confidence in me.

reporter: the president nominated samantha power to replace rice as u.n. ambassador. power resigned from the 2008 obama campaign for calling hillary clinton a mop steer. she later apologized, and today made a passionate plea for more muscular american intervention. >> i've een u.n. peacekeepers fail to protect the people of bosnia. as the most powerful and inspiring country on this effort , we have a critical role to play insisting the institution meet the necessities of our time. reporter: power, an advocate for strong u.s. action in libya, and rice pushes for approaches in syria, planing why john mccain today said he could work with rice as national security adviser and threw support behind power saying the senate needs to agent on nominations as soon as possible. lou: joining us now, former frl prosecutor, andrew mccarthy, great to have you with us. >> thank you. lou: outright, simply not

qualified. >> if she purposely lied or knew what she said on those sun shows was false, she's unfit to serve ethically, morally, and she simply -- ii she was about the business of pulling the wool over the american people's eyes, she shouldn't be in a position of trust. if she actually, honestly believed what she was saying on the circumstances where, as we now know within minutes of the attack, the government in washington knew that this was a terrorist attack, and certainly, by the time she was on those programs, it was utterly clear that it was not a reaction to the video, which is just been a fraud through and through from the start, then i don't see how she's confident to advise the president on matters like counterterrorism. lou: in this instance, she's his choice, and rather conveniently,

i think it might be said, will not have to testify in a confirmation process. in fact, the president's executive privilege can be -sserted so she doesn't testify adds all to congress on the issue of benghazi; right? >> well, let's see if that's the case that we do have some history of the president's advisers being called to testify on important matters. the 9/11 commission, for example, but it's up to whether the president is going to cooperate, is the most transparent administration in history going to be cooperative with congress and getting to the bottom of what happened? lou: i think that's moved by this administration, the most open and transparent. >> well, good to remind them, though, periodically, like, every day. lou: well, samantha power nominated, will be facing a confirmation process, as you know, and as we listened to her today talking about military intervention rather than relying upon the good offices of the united nations, which she

purports to be representing us too, this is a woman who has been ex-- well, excoriating in the criticism of the security council calling it undemocratic. shh has a strange voice for a u.s. ambassador to the united nations. >> my view of this, for what it's worth, is that when you elect president obama, you get samantha power. i think that she would be implementing his policy. i think that's clear across the board. i think it's clear at the justice department and homeland security. >> clear enough it poses obvious calls to the nomination? she's somewhat radical in views on the use of u.s. military power and where those interventions could take place and for rather than united nations forces. >> well, -- lou: ironic given this president lashed president obama and the republican party for their failure to rise above

uuilateraliim. >> yes. well, you know, look, i think she would implement his policy. she's not the most objectionable nominee that -- lou: that is the highest standard i heard applied. >> the fact is -- lou: the most objectionable. >> i want to see her not get through, but the fact is she's going to get through. i mean, look at who got through so far. there's been clear cases to stuff, a number of these nominee, and the republicans have not stopped them. i don't think this is the hill they die on. lou: andrew, good to have you here. >> thank you, sir. lou: new developments with the embattled revenue service. the irs today putting two of the senior staffers on administrative leave because they accepted free gifts in violation of government ethic standards. the two employees tasked with the enforcing obamacare allegedly accepted more than a thousand dollars in free food in a lavish california conference in 2010.

the move comes after an ininspecter general report this week found the irs spent $50 million on conferences over just three years. coming up, attorney general eric holder's assault on the media and freedom of speech. the leading attorney, lloyd abrams with us, puts it all in perspective for us, next.

lou: my first guest tonight says the attorney general is personally responsible for these dangerous incursions into the first amendment. it seriously threatens our freedom of expression. joining me is the leading first amendment attorney, lloyd abrams with a new book coming out tomorrow "friend of the court," and it will be released tomorrow.

great to see you. >> good to see you. lou: quite a spectacular, i think, series of statements from the attorney general's office in the justice department. the principle deputy responding saying that with regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure material that is not something i've been involved in, heard, or would think would be a wise policy. this is what the attorney regime said. how could that not be outright contra venges of truth? >> well, the way i view it, he may well be telling the truth they never messaged prosecuting. the problem is they told the judge and a signed affidavit by the fbi submitted by the fbi department that the journalist was -- there was probable cause to believe the journalist was violating the espionage act, and

at the very least, he was an aider or abetter of someone who was doing it. basically, and this is unacceptable. basically, they were trying to per sexually transmitted persuae them a search warrant and whether or not they believed they were going to go after the journalist, to me, is not the real point. the real point is that there was no basis for ever saying to the judge that the journalist was an aider and an abetter. lou: the big deal for me is the attorney general, the attorney general and fbi agent and a judge signed off on what every one of those people should have known was preposterous. >> i agree with that. i agree that -- i'll give the judge a pass because he had before him a signed affidavit from an fbi agent saying that the journalist was a flight risk. i mean, that was -- i mean, whether or not it was credible when it was said, it cannot have

been believed by people in the department of justice. lou: it amazes me that three institutions, the united states justice department, our couuts, our federal courts, and the fbi put their honor to the side. >> yeah. they did it in the name of the united states. i mean, this document was filed in court on the stationery of the united states of america, in the name of the united ssates, and what it said was that the journalist was, in effect, violating the espionage law, and it was not true. it was not true when they said it, and whether or not my guess is correct that that was their way of getting a search warrant. it's still unacceptable. lou: and where do we go from here? the idea that this could even --

there would be any discussion about this, the president would not immediately dismiss the attorney general, that immediately there wouldn't be a call for a full investigation. >> the fbi who signed the papers setting forth probable cause, the judge -- i will follow your counsel and give him a pass here, but i do so with -- i'm telling you, i'm absolutely repuused by what he did. >> well, look, this is an unacceptable situation, unacceptable behavior, and the question is where to go from here. i think the fear had a good effect. i really believe that at the very least, they will refrain from this type of exeases and this type of abuse in the future. i think that's likely. i mean, remember what are talking about here, a leak

investigation. leak investigations have their role, but they were never supposed to be the central focus. i mean, something that trumps everything else, and it's only if you believe that it is so important that we goo to get the guy that done it, ect., that we're ready to say this or ready to say that, ready to say that, that you can even understand it except as, you know, total indifference to the first amendment and total indifference to the just being up front with the court you're appearing before. lou: and the people you serve. >> and the people of the country, yeah. lou: lloyd abrams, always great to have you here. >> good to see you. lou: your words should disquiet, i think, the white house and the attorney general. hopefully to the point of action. thank you very much, lloyd. congratulations on your new book. the last recession calledded a

mancession because it hurt men in the work force hard, yet feminists and the liberal media celebrate a study. we wonder why. we'll explore it in tonight's "chalk talk." their cital one vd to fly home for the big family reunion. you must be arth's father? hello. mother. mother! traveling is easy with the venture card because you can fly airline anytime. wo w. doublmiles! this guy can act. wanna play dodge rock? oh, you guys! and with double miles you can actuay use, you never miss the fun. beard growingonte and go! ♪ win! what's in your wallet?

lou: in the last two or three days, i've been criticized by a few folks like some in the own tent saying a new study on breadwinner mommings concerns me, troubles me about the country and what's happening to the society. a few of the detractors decided it was a hallmark of, well, sisterhood and progress towards gender equality because moms are the sole or primary breadwinners in 40% of the homes. here's what they focus on in the new survey, and there's a lot of celebrate. it is, in some smaller percentage than they suggest, both at pugh and amongst folks i

had a word or two. there is some good, and there is also some submerge material that a lot of people didn't look at. we're now looking at 5.1 million married mothers who have a higher income than their husbands. that's great. who are they? let's ask ourselves what this all means. 49% of them have at least a college degree, 65% of them are white, 67% between the ages of 30-50. they are more mature. they are median family income is nearly $80,000, and i think that's pretty much what most people would expect, but all that is not what impressed me in the study or concerned me, and believe it or not, there are few folks who thought i shouldn't be concerned or i shouldn't be troubled by what we are seeing, and i don't know why they felt that way. frankly, i don't care because it

was more ideological. it was more reflexive. it had something to do in some abstract way, i think, with some sort of gender politics, but here is what my detractors refuse to acknowledge. in some cases, they didn't want to talk about it. the single moms, there's 8.6 million of them versus the 5.1 million with the 80,000 and life going good, but these single mothers who are working, 49% of them, 49% of them have a high school degree, and they are working because they have to. this is not about the sisterhood. this is not about progress. this is about the consequence of choices that we're making as a society, and it's not working out great for these folks, and to deny that, i consider to be

outrageous. 40% of them are black. nearly a quarter, 24% of hispanic, nearly a third of them are white. almost half, 46%, are 30 years or younger. if they've ever been married, whether divorced, separated, or widowed, they make on average $29,000 a year. if they've never been married, they make an average of $17,400 a year, the poverty line, by the way, for a family with one adult and one child just over $15,000 so that tells you where these women and their children live in our economy. their children live in poverty and the moms are the sole provider by default, not because of gender equality or progress or here are, you know, hear us roar. many of these children of these single moms are at risk, and in so being, they perpetuate a

cycle of poverty and illegal behavior, all of us, men and women, have got to break the cycle of passivity, indifference, and good, god, yes, break the cycle of irresponsible, political correctness that deludes some into denies pain in our society and the consequences of poor public policy decision. we've got to address and fix this for these people's sake. we're going to take all of that up with fox news national security analyst kc mcfarland with a career in home, family, and a fox news contributor who insists the traditional home and family thing is not for her. two perspectives, two bright women on these issues here next. ♪ we we out and asked peopl a simple question:

how olis the oldest person you've known? we gave people a sticker and had them show us. we learned a lot of us have known someone who's lived well into their 90s. and that's a great thing. but even though we're living longer, thing that hasn't cnged much is the official retirement age. ♪ the queion is how do you make su you have the money you need enjoy all of these years. ♪

be one as i just mentioned in the "chalk talk", a pew study on breadwinner moms my next guest has investigated issues confronting women. k.t. mcfarland. our fellow broadcaster. she is a grandmother of five. >> that is right b-1 also a grim turn her five grandchildren. we are talking about women. >> i have a dog as well. lou: she has a dog too. >> how can we ballyhoo all this

progress? lou: that's right, you saw this in the "chalk talk." more than 8.5 million women face in income between $29,000, and 30,000 dollars a year. we are perpetuating such a waste in our society. >> the unfortunate part is that there are very few people who are willing to talk about this. this is a very sensitive subject. you have to talk about single mothers in the problems in an shoe. able to give them educationalng opportunities. you're talking about what ultimately leads to the entitlement society that you have. these people become dependent on government programs. they have two figures who are able to contribute to their emotional and financial well-being.

i support that you are financially able to take that on, i also tip my hat to you. but you'd need to be sure that you can financially provide for that child or you are doing a disservice not only to child, but society at large. lou: i'm thinking there's a lot more work than money. >> the thing that struck me that you just did a few studies on us. he said we have this week side

which is well educcted and quite conservative. >> he kept his entire analysis and conclusions to only white americans. >> that's right. >> what he found is that they are better educated, they stay married, they have a very low divorce rate. only 4% of them have children out of wedlock. those kids and those families are very intact and they are doing really well. but there is this whole other group been talked about in the "chalk talk." they are single parent families, the women are breadwinners, not out of choice but necessity, the children are far more likely to use drugs, to be poorly educated. that is the problem. because america is built on a great middle class. lou: do you want to get married? you want your children? >> i personally do not want to have children.

hopefully i will have a husband if i do that has no problem with me being a breadwinner. you know, i am one of those people who doesn't feel like it really matters. who wears the financial pinson family and that something is something that needs to be decided on an individual basis. per couple, per family. 300 million people and we have to be able to accommodate a lot of choices and reflexes should not be a neanderthal or bizarre. there ought to be a very simple thing to say. it is up your life, it is america, you live it. i don't understand why that isn't the case. there is a sort of, i donnt know, any other way to say it -- it's sort of a primitive outlook.

we are talking about the importance of two people who love and support a child without being outdated. the witty you do that is by saying that i want people to be in power. i want children to be empowered. lou: the children of 8.6 million and the pew research poll are in power. >> they will never catch up. a lot of the assumptions made or challenged in society. >> talk about the cultural components. how people feel about men and women. gender stereotyping and what that has to do with us all. that puts an interesting mix and there is a lot of research on college campuses about how men %-beyond you know, get out there

and go to work and you do something that you enjoy. but it is not going to be an education. that is why we have 57% of college graduates that are women. certainly as breadwinners. thank you both. bill clinton first urged his wife to run against an incumbent president. ed klein, author of the amateur. on the clinton and obama relationship.

lou: my next guest has been saying for months on this broadcast that the relationship between the obama's and clinton's has never been a more

warm and cozy. president bill clinton agreed to give back incredibleespeech at the democratic national convention. in return, president obama would endorse hillary in 2016. president has been dodging in and out of that deal ever since. joining us with the details is the author of the best-selling book, the amateur. it is now released in paperback. brand-new details. we will be discussing it here tonight. ed klein, it is great to have you. >> thank you. the democratic national convention. we knew something was going on. because his animation and enthusiasm haveenever been so apparent.

>> he said that he thought he had the right to name the new chairman of the democratic national committee. that was the deal. and it stuck right through the election until obama won. then he started backing off. lou: as the report, he gets furious because the president decides welcome i don't need him anymore. we are talking about the second term president, suddenly all lovey-dovey on the cameras. >> that was the payoff that obama had to do when he found

out that hillary clinton may be having a private talk. that is how much he took it. obama and his people -- lou: this was not a potential adversary. >> i thinkkobama realizes that. the big friendship on television and then they invited the clintons to the white house for the very first time to have dinner in the family quarters. guess who's there at the dinner? valerie jarrett. they wouldn't even have dinner with them alone.

>> president clinton talked about george w. bush. what is the current state of the deal? what are hillary's plans? >> the current state of the deal but i have been told by sources that i have been talking to for several months, is that the clintons have given up any hope of getting obama's endorsement in 2016 despite the deal. the deal has basically been talked over and tossed over the side of the boat. obama saying that he is my vice president, i can't turn my back

on joe. so i can't really describe it. lou: i am certain that that has to do with this deal. i guess john boehner was the one who famously reminded us how effective a deal is for this budget. it doesn't seem to me to be a dealbreaker for hillary and her aspirations for 2016, is a? >> no, i don't think it is at all. i think we have a president who gives his word. i have been reeorting on barack obama for several years. i can't tell you how many people have told me that i thought he had a deal and i thought i had an agreement.

then he didn't follow through. this happens again and again. i think this is what has happened in congress. lou: ed klein, thank you for it the more desperate the paperback edition of the amateur is on ssle at bookstores. go to loudobbs.com and click on the link to the book the amateur. it is simply a disgrace. veterans forced to wait months and even years for their benefits. congressman jeff miller joins us tonight with his solution.

lou: the backlog has grown to expect 600 to 10,000 of our veterans. incrrasing 200% in the past four years. joining us is congressman jeff miller. any member of the armed services committee and the select committee on intelligence. let me just start with the numbers that i cannot even believe. 273 days, the average weight for a combat veteran before any benefits. that is appalling. >> that is the average grade you might imagine this. you have so many individuals that are waiting 500 days and more. they are actually having claims that are in the queue now 30 years and years old. and we have to figure out what the problem is. i want to help the department of veterans affairs. i don't want to do it from an adversarial position. but the numbers keep rising. veterans keep waiting. they keep dying before they get

their benefits. lou: is simply outrageous. to make sure that they have every dollar in person. >> it is not a matter of not getting what they asked for. the department has done everything they have asked for. lou: we are looking at these paper files and boxes of paper files.

>> every regional office you go to all across the country. you will see stacks of those paper files. very little of it is digitized. something over little month ago or two months ago. he came up with an idea and let3 them figure it out later, he said. >> that is a great idea. i have great respect for secretary nicholson for the problem is that the va is terrible about going out and collecting on insurance payments that are being made now.

or they have billions of daughter and $10 that are out there. but i would like to see if maybe a partial payment, like you said, in advance of some type. i think that could be one of the only ways we could get over the hill. the problem with this is the focus that is being given to the disability backlog right now. the overtime. if they don't fix the system that they've got. it doesn't matter how much they have put to go down. lou: we left out the man who is responsible. that is, after all, the president of the united states. president obama. you are trying to manage around a man who is not taken the lead on us. we appreciate it, congressman. so much. >> thank you very much. up next, the new book. the inside story of a shadowy international bank.

the author is coming up next. please stay with us. ♪ [ lighter flicking ] [ male announc ] you've reached the age where giving up isn't who you are. ♪ this is the age of knowing how to make things happen. so, why let erectile dysfunction get in your way? tk to your door about viagra. 20 millionen already have. ask your docr if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take viagra if you take nitrates for chest pain; it may cause an unsafe drop in bloodressure.

sideffects ilude adache, flusng, upset stomah, and abnormal vision. to avoid long-term injur seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than fo hours. stop taking viagra and call your doctor right away if you experience a sudden decrease or loss in vision or hearing. this is the age of taking action. viagra. talk to your doctor. a friend under water is something complely different. i met a turtle friend today. avo: whatever you're looking for, expedia has more ways to help you find yours. a talking car. but i'll tell you what presses me. a talking train. this ge locomotive can tell you exactly where is, what it's carrying, while using less fuel. delivering whatever the world needs, when it needs it. ♪ after all, what's the point of talking if you don't have something important to say? ♪

lou: this new book reveals that clandestine activities of the bank of international settlements. the accounting of their legal immunity is and how they operate. gray tabby with us, adam. >> and for having me on the show. lou: this is a fascinating book and a fascinating subject. it is one of the most important people in business and banking.

>> what is the world financial management about? >> started in the late 1990s there is a chapter that i wrote and i just thought that this was very fascinating organization. >> who runs the bank? who really run runs this? >> the bank really runs itself. you have been a foreign correspondent, you have been one throughout the career. lou: do you believe it to be a benign force?

>> what we want to know is that we want information on what goes on. lou: we do resist authority little bit and we accept it. there are those who resist the federal reserve. i commend it to you. it is on sale now online.

bookstores everywhere. go to loudobbs.com. it is great to have you here. come back and we will talk more. that is at rest tonight, we thank you for being with us. we will see you tomorrow. good night from new york. neil: goldilocks. one out of 75,000 more last month good enough to show growths and wonder today in the stock buying binge, nothing but this.