neil: good evening, everybody. thank you for being with us. as we go through he day's events and developments, it may help us t remember we're all in this together. there is a lot to cover tonight. with the white house and this esident engulfed in scandals, trust is noo unexpectedly eroding inhe administration. it may have rendered him a lame duck before his tie. his desire for relevance may be frustrated the remainder of hi term. the cutting consequences of this president's toxic ladehip style are much in evidence tonight. consider this. his approval rating dropped another point overnight. it does remain at 47%. business confidenceeasured by the jobs that business leaders

crate is weak. even in the fifth year of the economic recovery. depending on whether you support this president or don't, his appointments ambassado susan rice and samantha power to the post rice holds are bold, deft stres by a president intent on not adding an outsider t 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 a his whitehouse 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 administtion. >> as our ambassador to the u.n., susan has been a tireless

advocate n advancing ur interests. >> i'm deeply graftful for your enduring confidence in me. we have much still to accmplish on behalf o the american peole,, and i look forwrd to continuing to serve on your national security team to keep our naton strong and safe. lou: yes, she is the same rice who aggressively spearheaded the obama administratn's stone wall and benghazi. going on five sunday talk show 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 arican pblic, 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 raks, preparing for what, well, ma be

a protracted, debilitating, political and legal confrontation. the outcome of which may be his principlee legacy as preident p. this is no longer the presidency of hope and change. this is awhite house now dug n against itscritics andfauxes. a new, bc poll shows at least 55% of amerins think each of the white house sandals raises doubts about the administration's honesty and interity. there is a high price to pay for those doubts. for more on the president's controversial apointnts today, turng to the chief white house correspondent, ed henry, wit our report. >>resident obama's second term charm offensive with the reublicans took a detour in te rose garden tody. by partisan outreach gave w to defiance as tomresigned replaced with susan rice, the one blocked from elevation to

secretary of state over benghazi. >> this team of people has been dedicated to ameri. they have made america safer. >> reporter: republicans beg to dier sayingce got a pot that does not require senate cop fir mages because she ucks questions about the five unday talk shows. >> she was used, via the talking points or come police sit in the drafting the talking points, and it's not asking too mu she answer the questions before she offer hersel for prromotions for something as important as national securit adviser. reporter: carney inssted it was preliminary information and double down onthe idea that the mistakes cacam from the intelligence community. >> the most ualified foreign policy experts in america if that's the case, how didshe get the information on benghazi so wrg many >> i welcomehe opportunity to correct the record for some news outlts who

persist on misrepresenting the facts. the central contested point that was made on those sunday shows was drafted in thefirst instance and in every instance theafter by the cia. >>thy teed out of for not explaning the role in the private reaction tohe benghazi terrorist attack. >> it's not just whatas said on tv thaat sunday, butthe fact that tom was the key individual in the white house and probably in my opion the one most likely to have been the architect of changing what the cia tarted to say to what ended up bing wat susan riceid say. reporter: colleagues dscribed him as a tireless public serant saying the change is vaned cation for rice who expressed loyalty to the president. >> i'm deeply grateful for your enduring conidence in me. porter: the president

nominated samantha powerto reace rice asu.n. ambassado power resigned from the 2008 obama ampaign for calling hillary clinn a mop steer. she late apologized, and today made apassionate plea for more muscular ameican intervention. >> i've een un. peacekeepers fail to protect the peoe of bosnia. as e 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 or strong u.s. ction in libya, and rice puses for approaches in syria,planing why john mccain today said he co work with rice as national security adviser andthrew support behind power saying th senate needs to agent on nominations as soon as possible. lou: joining us now, former frl prosecutor, andrew mccarthy, great to have you wit us. >thank you. lou: outright,simplynot

qualified. >> if she puposely lied or knew what se 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 peole's eyes, she shoun't bein a position of trust. if she actually honestly believed wat she was saying on the circumstances where, as we nowknow within minutes of the ttack, th govement in washington knew that this was a terrorist attack, and certainly, by the time she was on those programs, it was utterly clear hat it was not a reaction to the video, which is just been a fraud through and through from the start, then i do't see how she's confident to advise the president on matters like counterterrorism. lou: in this intance, 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 shdoesn't testify adds all to congress on the issue of benghaz right? >> well, let's see if that's the case hat we do have some istory of the prsident's adviserseing called to testify onimportant matters. the 9/11 commissin, for example, but it's up to whether e president is goinng to cooperate, is the most transparent administration in history going to be cooperative with congress and getting to te bottom of what happened? lou: i thik that's moed by this administration, the most open and transpare. >> wll, goodto remind them, though,periodically, like, every day. lou: well, samantha power nominat, will be facing a coirmation pcess, as you know, and as we listened to her today alking about military intervention rather than relyi upon the good offices of the united nations, which she

purports to be representing us too, thisis awoman who has been ex-- well, xcoriatinin the criticism of the security council callingit 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 yu elect predent 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 departmt nd homeland security. >> clear enough it poses obvious calls tohe 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 uited nations force >> well, -- lou: ironic given this president lashed president ama and the republican party for their failure to rise above

uuilateraliim. >> yes. ll, you know, look, i think she would implement his policy. she's not the most objtionable nominee that-- lou: that i the highest standard i hard applied. >> the fact is -- lou: the most objectionable. >> i want tosee her not get through, but the act 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, an therepublicans 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 acepted more than a thousandollar in free food in a lavish california conference in 010. the move comes after an

ininspectegeneralreport this week found the irs spent $5 million on conferences over just thr years. coming up, attorney general eric holder's assault n the med and freedom of speech. the leading attorney, lloyd abrams with us, puts it all in perspective f

lou: my first guest tonight says the attorney general is personay resonsible for these ngerous incursions into the first amement. it seriously threatens our freedom of xpression. joining me is the leadng first amendment attorney, lloyd arams with a new book comingout tomorrow friend ofthe court," and it will be eleased tomorrow. great to ee ou.

>> good to see you. lou: quite a specacular, i think, sees of statements from the attorney general's office in the justice department. the principle deputy responding saying that with regardto the potential prsecution of the press for the disclosure material that is not something i' been involved in, heard, or would think would be a wise policy. this is what the attorney regime said. how could th not be outright contra venges of truth? >>well, the way i view it, he may well be telling the trut they never mesaged prosecuting. the problem is they told he judge and a signed affidavit by the fbi submitted by the fb department that the journalist was -- there was probable cause to belive the journalist was violating the esionageact, ad at the very least, he was an

aider or abetter of meone 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 ater the journalist, to me, is not the real point. the real point is that there was no basis for ever saying to th judge that the journalist was an aider an an abetter. lou: the big me is the attorneygeneral, the attoney general and fbi agent and a judge signed off on what every one of those people shod have known was preposterous. >> i agree with that. i agree that -- i'll give the judge a pass because he had before hima signed affidavit from an fbi agent saying that the journalis was a flight risk. i mean, that was -- i mean, whetheor not it was credible when it was said, t cannot have

been believed by people in the department of justice lou: it amazes me that three institutions, the united stats justice departmt, ourcouuts, our federal couts, and the fbi put their honor to theide. >> 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 famrica, in thname 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, nd whether or not my guess is correct that that was the way of getting a search warrant. it's still unacceptable. lou: and where do we go from he? the idea that this could even -- there would be any discussion

about this, the president would not immeditely 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 couns and give him a pass here, but i do so with -- 'm lling you, i'm absolutely repuused by wat he did. >> well, look, this is an unacceptable siuation, unacceptable bavior, and te uestio 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 fure. i think that's likely. i mean, remember what are talking about here, a leak

investigation. leak inestigations have their role, but they were never supposed to be the central focus. i mean, somethingthat trumps everything else, andit's only if you believe that it is so important that we goo to get he guy thatdone it, ect., that we're ready to say this r ready to sthat, ready to say that, that you can even understand it except as, you know, total indifference to the first amendment ad total ndifferenc to the just being up front with the court you're appearing before. lou: and the people ou serve. >> and the people of te country, yeh. lou: lloyd abrams, lways great to ave y here. >> good to see you. lou: your wods should disquiet, i think, the white house and the attorney general. hopefully to the point of action. thank yove much, lloyd. congratulations on your new book. the last reession calledde a

mancession because it hurt men in the work force ard, yet feinists and the liberal media celrate a study. we wonder why. we'l explore it in tonight's halk ta

lou: in the last two or three days, i've been criticized by a few folks like sm in the own tent saying a new study on breadwinner mommings cncerns me, troubles me about the country and wt'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 t homes. here's what they focus on in the new survey, nd there's a lot of celebrate. it is, in some smaller percentage than they suggest, both at pugh and amongst folks i

had aword r two. there is some god, and there is also some submerge material that a lot of ppeople 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 re 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 matue. ththey aree median family incoms nearly $80,000, and i think that's pretty much what most people would epect, but all that is not what impressed me in thestudy or concerned me and beeve it or not, there re few folks who thought i shouldn't be concerned or i shouldn' be oubledy what we are seeing, and i don't know why they elt that way. frankly, i don't care because it

was more ideological. it was more reflexive. it had somethg to do in some abstract way, i think, with soe sort of gender politics, but here what mydetractors refuse to acknoedge. in some cases, they didn' want to talk about it. the single moms, there's 8.6 million of them versus the 5.1 milion with the 80,000 and life going good but these single mothe ho are wrking, 49% of them, 49% of them have a high school degree, and they are working because they have o. this is not about he sisterhood. this is not about progress. this is abou the onsequence of choices that we're making as a society, and it's not working out greatfor these folks, and to deny that, i consider to be outrageous.

40% of them are black. nearly a quater, 4% of hispanic, nearly third of hem are white. almost half, 6, are3 years or younger. if they've ever been married, whether divorced, separated, or widowed, they make on avere $29,000 a yar. if they've never been married, they make an averageof $17,400 a year, ththe poverty line, by e way, for a family with one adult and one child just over $15,000 so that tells you here these women an their children lve in our economy. their children live in poverty and the moms are the sole provider by default, not bcause of gender equality or pogress or here are, you know, hear us roar. many of these children of these single moms are at ris, and in so being, they perpetuate a

cycle of poverty and illegal behavior, all of us, men and women, havegot to break the cycle of passivity, indifference, and good, god, irreonsible, political correctness that deludes some into deies pain in ousociety anand the consequences of poor public policy decision. we've got to address ad fix this for these peple's sake. we're going to take all of that up ith fox news national secuty anayst kc mcfarla with a career in home, fami, and a fox news contributo who insists the traditional home and famy thing isnot fr her. two perrspectives, twobright women on these issues he next.

be one as i just mentioned in the "chalk talk", a pew stud on breadwinner moms my nextguest 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 dolls a year. we aperpetuating such a waste in our socie. >> the unfrtunate pat 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 at you ha. these people become dependent on government programs. they have two figures who are ab 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 disserviceot only to child, but society at large. lou: i'm thinking there's a lot more work than money. >> the thing tt struck me that you just d a few studies on us. he said we have this week side

which is well educcted and quite conservate. >> he kept his entire analysis and conclusions to only white americans. >> that's right. >> what e found is that they are better educated,hey stay married, they have a very low vorce rate. only 4% ofhem have childre out of wedlock. those kids and those families are ry intact and they are doing really well. but there is this whole other grp been talked about in the "chalk talk." they are single parent families, the wmen are breadwinners, not out of choice but necessity, the children are far more likely to use drugs, to be po educated. that is the problem. because amica 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. yo know, i m one of those people who doesn't feel lke 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 pele and whave 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 importan of two peple who love and support a c without being outdated. the witty you do that is by saying that i want peoe o be in power. i want children to be empowered. lou: the chiren of 86 million and th pew research poll ar in power. >> they will never catch up. a lot of the assumptions made or challenged in society. >> talk about th 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 ad 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 agaiinst an incumbet president. ed klein, author of the amateur.

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 mo warm and cozy.

president bill clinton agreed to give back incredieespeecht the decratic nationa convention. in return, president obama would endorse hillary in 2016. president has been dodging in and out of that deal er since. joining us with the etails the author of the best-selling book, the amateur. it is now released in paperback. brand-new details. we will be discussing it here 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 haveenver 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 stuc 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 camras. >> that was he payoff that obama had to do when he found

out that hillary clinton may be having arivate talk. that is how much he took it. obama and his people -- lou: this was not a potential adveary. >> i thinkkobama realizesthat. 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 whs there at the dinner? valerie jarrett. they wouldn't even have dinner with them aloe.

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

on joe so i can't really dscribe it. lou: i am certain that that has to do with this deal. i guess john boehn was t one who famously reminded us how effective a deal is for this budget. it doesn't seem to me to b a dealbreaker for hillary ad her aspirations for 2016, is a? >> no, i don't think it is at all. i think we have a president who gives hiword. i have been reeorting on barak obama for several years. 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 hapns again and again. i think this is what has happened in congress. lou: ed klein, thank you for it the mo desrate the paperback edition of the amateur is on ssle at bookstores. go to loudobbs.com and click on the link to the book he 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

lou: the backlog has grown to

expect 600 to 10,000 of our veterans. crrang 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 ev believe. 273 days, the average weight for a combat veteran before any benefits. that is applling. >> that is the average grade you might imagine is. you have so many individuals that are waiting00 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 veteransffairs. i don't want to do it from an adversarial position. but the numbs 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 n person. >> it is not a matter of not getting what they asked or. the department has done everything they have asked for. lou: we are looking at tse paper files and xes 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 gret respect for secretary nicholson for the problem is that the va is terrible about going out and collecng on insurance at are be.

or they have billions of daughter and $10that are out there. t 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 eing given to the disability bklog right n. the overtime. if they don't fithe system that they've gt iton' matr how mh th haveut t go down. lo we left ot the man who is responsible. that is,fter allthe president of the united states. president obama. you are trying to manage around a man who is nottaken the ead on us. we areciate it, ngressman. so much. >> thank you very much. up next, the new book. the inside story of a shadowy international bank. the author is comin

lou: this new book reveals hat clandestine activities of the bank of international settlements. the accounting of their lal immunity is and hothey operate. gray tabbywith us, am. >> 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 wrote and i just thought that this was very fascinating organization. >> who runs thebank? 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 comment 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 wil talk more. "the willis report" is next. ♪ gerr hello, everybody. i'm gerri willis. tonight on "the willis report" new questions about safety at construction sites all over the country. as the fallout mouse from the deadly building collapse in philadelphia. also, it is the biggest dragnet of consumer information and our naon's history. the uproar grows. >> you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy. gerri: the market's jump. the dow higher for the week. how do you lock in profits? we are watching out for you tonight on "the willis report"