about these in greater detail. iraq was also another area of discussion for us on regional issues. transparent elections in iraq and the participation of -- insuring the participation of all political groups in the elections are both very important in iraq. with everyone's participation, we would like to see a peaceful period in the iraq -- both we and the united states would like to see. with respect to the middle east peace process, we discussed with the president this important issue which is very important for regional peace. in the effect who was taking humanitarian aid to gaza and turkish people were killed and we are working with the government for come pechb saying who lost their lives and visits

i will take to gaza will contribute to the peace in gaza and to unity in palestine in my opinion. the turkish republic of northern cypress is always in favor and we believe there is a lot of opportunity to reach an agreement on the cypress issue. this san area which we focus on. we discussed iran and afghanistan and all these issues. we have also briefly touched on upon some developments in africa and also myanmar. we shall joining the fight against terrorism will continue to be the case, as i said before. we also touched upon issues related to the defense industry. i can say that this turning

point in the conflict of turkish-american relations. welcome, i'm megyn kelly as we listen to the joint press conference with president obama as you heard. gregg jarrett mentioned, preemptively. maybe we can turn the sound down. there is three of us talking. >> megyn: trying to get in in front of the issue and how congress needs to fully fund for embassy security. which is an interesting way for the president to go since as you heard gregg mention. let's listen to the president. we're trying to take on. >> this will be an incentive to press to ask questions and for us to give concise answers. >> i'll start with julian from bloomberg. >> mr. president i want to ask you about the irs. can you assure the american

people that nobody in the white house knew about the agency's actions before your council office found out on april 22 and when they did find out do you think you should have learned about it before you learned about it, as you said last friday. also, are you opposed there being a special council appointed to lead the justice department investigation. and mr. prime minister, what is the status on the efforts to normalize relations with israel? do you still plan to go to gaza in the coming weeks? >> with respect to the irs, i spoke to this yesterday, my main concern is fixing a problem. we began that process yesterday by asking and accepting the resignation of the acting director there. we will be putting in new leadership that will be able to make sure that following up on

the things and gather up the facts, those who have taken these outrageous actions. as i said last night, it is just simply unacceptable for there to be even a hint of partisanship for ideology when it comes to the application of our tax laws. i'm going ask folks, we're going to get a couple of marines, they will look good next to us. [ laughter ] >> i've got a change of suits. i don't know about our prime minister. there we go. that is good. you guys. [ laughter ] >> let me make sure that i answer specific questions. i can assure you that i certainly did not know anything

about the i.g. report before it had been leaked through press, through the press. typically the i.g. reports are not supposed to be widely distributed or shared. they tend to be processed that everybody is trying to protect the integrity of. what i'm absolutely certain of that the actions that were described in the i.g. report are acceptable but we want to make sure we have facts and hold accountable and responsible for anybody that was involved with this. we want to make sure that we identify any structural or management issues to prevent something like this from happening again. we're going to make sure that we are accepting all of the recommendations that the i.g.

has in tept and i'm looking forward to working with congress to fully investigate what happened, to make sure it doesn't happen again, and also look at some of the laws that create a bunch of ambiguity which the irs may not have enough guidance and not be clear about what exactly they need to be doing and doing it right so the american people have confidence that the tax laws are being applied fairly and evenly. so you know, in terms of the white house and reporting that you've gotten that information from mr. carney and others, i promise you this. the minute i found out about it, my main focus is to make sure we get the thing fixed. i think that it's going to be

sufficient for us to be working with congress. they've got a whole bunch of committees. we've got i.g.s already there. they've done an audit and they will be recommending an investigation, and attorney general holder announced a criminal investigation of what happened. between those investigations we'll figure out exactly what happened, who was involved, what went wrong and we're going to be able to implement steps to fix it. that ultimately is the main priority that i have and also the american people. they understand that we've got an agency that has enormous potential power and is involved in everybody's lives. that is part of the reason why it's been treated as a quasi-independent institution but also why we have to make

sure that it is doing its job skruip rousely and without even a hint of bias or a hint that somehow favoring one group over another. as i said yesterday, i'm outraged by this in part because look, i'm a public figure. if a future administration is starting to use tax laws to favor one party over another or one political view over another, obviously, we're all vulnerable. that is why, as i said, it doesn't matter whether you are democrat or republican, you should be equally outraged at prospect that the irs may not be acting with the kind of complete neutrality that we expect. i think we'll be able to fix it and get it done. we've begun that process and keep on going until it is

finished. >> question about gaza. according to my plans. >> megyn: president speaking on the matter of the irs scandal investigating conservative groups for a period of 18 plus months. then when asked repeatedly by members of congress whether that has been done, senior irs officials didn't mention it. declined to go there and specifically asked in may of 2012 we saw the then irs commissioner testify it wasn't happening, but they had knowledge within the irs, march of 2012, by that point it was. so we still have a lot of questions. we'll go back to the president. normally it goes a president to obama and then back to the turkish prime minister. we'll try to get obama's remarks for you and monitoring this.

chris is with us now. what the president just said -- i certainly did not know anything regarding the i.g. report before it was leaked to the press. that leaves a lot unanswered. >> carefully worded, no doubt. the truth, of course, is that the president -- that statement could still be true and so could a lot of other things, but if you didn't know about the i.d. report per se, you may know about other concerns. we now know in this th has been knocked around inside the irs for months and months as this is going around. how about this? the white house council's office is known for three weeks about this and didn't tell the president. i thought it was an excellent question from bloomberg -- how come they didn't tell you, how come nobody told you about this problem with the agency that president himself just pointed out is so central to the lives and liberties of every american

citizen. >> megyn: he didn't speak to that. >> the question prior to, why didn't they tell you from the white house counsel's office, no one at the white house knew about the irs's actions? no one at the white house and he responds, not on behalf of the white house and not about the irs's actions in general, but only for himself and the i.g. report. here it is cued qood up again. here is president obama. >> i can assure you that i certainly did not know anything about the i.g. report before the i.g. report had been leaked to press. >> megyn: that doesn't tell us much. we need to know if someone at the white house knew what the irs is accused of doing, what if anything they did about it. if they didn't tell the president. we still don't know. he didn't deny that he knew about the accusations about the

irs or may or may not have been doing. he only spoke to -- he is talking now. i want to get back. >> so it's sufficient to prompt strong international action. that is why the prime minister and i spoke extensively about the steps we're taking on humanitarian efforts. steps we're taking to strengthen the opposition politically so that it is inclusive and representative of all the people inside syria. the steps we need to take to strengthen the capacity of the syrian opposition that are on the ground fighting to protect themselves from the assad regime that we continue to try to mobilize the entire international community to put more and more pressure on assad so he recognizes she no longer legitimate and he needs to go. we are able to move to a political transition in which

the institutions inside of syria are still functioning, but we have a representative multiethnic, multireligious body that can bring about democracy and peace inside of syria. with respect to what i said in the past about red lines. what i've said the use of chemical weapons are something that civilized world has recognized should be out of bounds. as we gather more evidence and work together, my intention is to make sure we are presenting everything that we know to the international community as an additional reason and additional mechanism for the international community to put all the pressure they can on the assad regime and to work with the

opposition to bring about that political transition. there are whole range of options that the suns already engaged in and i preserve the options of taking additional steps both diplomatic and military. those chemical weapons inside or the long term as well as allies and friends and neighbors. this is also an international problem. this is very much my hope to continue to work with all the various parties involved including turkey to find a solution that brings peace to to to syria, stabilizes the region and stabilizes the chemical weapons but it won't be something that the united states does by itself. i don't think anybody in the region, including the prime minister, would think that unilateral actions of themselves would bring about a better outcome inside of syria.

>> jeff mason. >> thank you. i would like to ask about the justice department. do you believe that the seizure of phone records of associated press journalists that was announced this week was an overreach? do you still have full confidence in your attorney general? should we interpret yesterday's media shield law as response to that. more broadly, how do you feel about comparisons by some of your critics as comparisons of the nixon administration? >> i'll let you engage in those comparisons. you can read the history and draw your own conclusions. my concern is making sure if there is a problem in the government, that we fix it. that is my responsibility. that is what we're going to do. that is true with respect to the irs and making sure that they apply the laws the way they were

intended. that is true with respect to the security of our diplomats which is why we're going to need to work with congress to make sure there is adequate funding for what is necessary out there. now, with respect to the department of justice, i'm not going to comment on a specific and pending case. i can talk broadly about the balance that we have to strike. leaks related to national security can put people at risk. they can put men and women in uniform that i have sent in the battlefield at risk. they can put some of our intelligence officers who are in various dangerous situations that are easily compromised at risk. u.s. national security is

dependent on those folks being able to operate with confidence that folks back home have their backs so they are not left out there high and dry and potentially put in even more danger than they already may be. i make no apologies and i don't think the american people expect as commander in chief not to be concerned about information that might compromise their missions or get them killed. the flip side, we live in a democracy where free press and free expression and the open flow of information helps hold me accountable and helps hold the government accountable and helps our democracy function. the whole reason i got involved in politics because i believe in deeply in that process.

the whole goal of this media shield law that was worked on and largely endorsed by folks like the "washington post" editorial page and my prosecutors, was finding a way to strike that balance appropriately. to the extent that this case which we still don't know all the details of, to the extent this case has prompted renewed interest about how do we strike that balance properly -- i think now is the time for us to revisit that legislation. i think that is worthy conversation to have. i think that is important. but i also think it's important to recognize when we express concern about leaks at a time when i've still got 60,000 plus

troops in afghanistan, i've still got a whole bunch of intelligence officers around the world who are in risky situations in outposts in some cases as dangerous as the outposts as dangerous as benghazi, part of my job that we are protecting what they do, while still accommodating for the need for information or the need for the public to be informed and be able to hold my office accountable. >> and mr. prime minister i wanted to ask you, if the united states does not step up it's involvement in the syria, in your view how will it affect the war? what plans do you have react to the border town. >> megyn: president making news about o the matter of syria. he has seen evidence of chemical weapons being used, but it's

important to get more information. >> i expect he will continue to do so. >> megyn: he is expressing confidence in his attorney general. we're only at the beginning this week. the president in syria, saying he said preserve i think he meant reserves both diplomatic options and military options. department of justice he is not going to comment on a pending case. our viewers he mass commented on many pending cases in the past but hit has come back to bite him. saying, look we need balance in this country for the need of national security on the one hand. which is why we don't like leaks and the freedom of the press. which is with respect to the first amendment we don't like

people looking at cellphone records without any advance to the organization that are powerless when he they don't have any advance noticed of them find months and months after it happened. it's been done. eric holder has been looking at your phone records. call your husband, he knows. call your mistress. he knows. it's all on the phone records and department of justice has been pouring over it. it's call your source and get a cowl from your source. eric holder knows who it is. that is what the a.p. had reported on, that led to the doj investigation. they is all all the records. they saw it for 20 reporters and apparently over hundred phone lines captured. this is last question, i believe. is this for turkish prime minister? this is president obama. let's listen. >> talking about the tragedy

this time. >> mr. prime minister, before your departure from montreal, you stated you had expectations from this visit and you had some expectations. what is your general observation about this visit? >> we would have preferred assad go two years ago. last year, six months ago, two months ago, there has been consistency on the parted of my administration that assad lost legitimacy when he started firing on his own people and killing his own people who initially were protesting peacefully for a greater voice in their country's affairs. obviously, that that has escalated during the course of time. so the answer is, the sooner the

better. in terms of the question, how, i think we have discussed that. there is no magic formula for dealing with an extraordinarily violent and difficult situation like syria's. if there was, i think the prime minister and i would have already acted on it and it would be finished. instead, we have to apply steady international pressure, strengthen the open significant. i do think that the prospect of talks in geneva involving the russians and representatives about a serious political transition that all the parties can buy in to may yield results, but in the meantime, we're going to continue to make sure that we are helping the opposition and obviously dealing with the humanitarian situation. we'll do so in close

consultation with turkey which obviously is deeply invested in this and with whom we've gotten an outstanding relationship with. >> megyn: all right. let's pick it up. chris is still standing by. let's get back. we have the question debated from the bloomberg reporter, this is back on the topic whether anyone at the white house knew about whether the irs up to. does anybody really care whether the president knew whether the i.g. was investigating? we want to know whether anyone in the white house what the irs was doing, but what the irs was doing is what important here. okay? so here is the question the bloomberg question asked. mr. president, i want to ask you about the irs. can you assure the american people that nobody in the white house knew about the agency's

actions before your counsel's office found out that nobody knew about the agency's actions before your counsel's office found out? d she is asking him did anybody in at the white house that the irs was doing. let's listen. >> i can assure you that i certainly did not know anything about the i.g. report before the i.g. report had been leaked to press. >> megyn: and in a court of law, what we would say, objection, nonresponsive. he is not responding. that is not what she asked. these types -- this wording is not accidental and it's still leaves open a major question which is, did he know what the irs is doing, did anybody at the white house know what irs was

doing prior to the office being informed that the inspector general concluded their report? >> in politician we call it typical. they don't answer your question. they answer the question that they want to, that they intended to all along. president problem for the president remains this. these bad acts, this targeting this harassment occurred. he says not at his behest but the targets were his political enemies. even one tindrel, one wisp, a spore of this thing touches the white house, white house visit for anybody that was involved in this and be getting names before too long, if anybody was involved with this gets within a thousand cubic feet of the white house or president obama, this goes from bad, to very, very dire. he is drawing a very clear perimeter there, yes, we didn't know anything about the

inspector general's report, but does not go to the question about what about the targeting of your political enemies by this federal agency. >> megyn: now on the question of benghazi, the president tried to get out in front of that before he begin speaking and said, he is calling on congress to fully fund budget requests for embassy security. this is one of the lessons of benghazi, he is suggesting. now charlene lamb the state department employee and one of the only people that have been held accountable. she got a two week administrative leave. she testified before congress. question was refusal to provide more security because the state department kept denying for security. state department were begging for security and ms. lamb said no. so was the refusal caused by budget cuts? no, was her answer and then this

exchange with darrell issa. >> ms. lamb, yesterday you told us in testimony that you received from mr. nordstrom a registers wnout a request for more security. you admitted that in fact you had previously said that if he submitted a request, would you not support it. is that correct? >> under the current conditions, yes. sir, we had the correct number of assets in benghazi at the time of 9/11 for what had been agreed upon. >> megyn: so what is really going on here? >> well, it's a great answer because the white house and team obama and democrats have been setting up this talking pointed for weeks if to the months which is to say, even though we had that testimony and other statements that money is not what preclude this had, even hillary clinton, though she said they needed money in general

made it clear it wasn't a shortage of resources that caused such a short staffing on security in benghazi, there has been increasing talking point that pushed out that connects the two. even though there is not a causal relationship but this is presidential making the full turn on this by talking about this. he didn't claim it was fault of insufficient funding but to prevent it in the future, it is a technically true, there is no republican can say that he is lying or doing something wrong. it's a good way for them to try to advance the discussion. >> megyn: the point is that everyone in the country knows we have four dead americans including a dead ambassador. we needed more security. people on the ground were begging for it. the state department not only refused it repeatedly but they decreased the security on the ground in benghazi. now, we got four dead americans as a result.

so the issue of security there is a legitimate one. the question of why it wasn't there is still an open one. president seems to be suggesting it wasn't there because of budget constraints. his critics have said, it wasn't there because you want to make libya look it was all fine and dandy and it wasn't because you wanted to promote this policy -- i've got everything under control and my policies have created this shifted in the watershed moment in the middle east. don't worry, america, they are on board with us. that is what the critics are saying. he is saying, if we could have money but the darned house republicans didn't give it to us. that is the inference, am i wrong? >> he is hoping that people will draw a conclusion, he will hope people will craw drau a wrong conclusion out of this. it would be very helpful to him. what you've described the thing they've been trying to avoid all

along. allegation of the cover-up and what we now know to be a spib doctoring of the discussion on this stuff is designed to insulate the president from claims that they botched this. so this a logical extension of that. >> megyn: chris, thank you, sir. we'll have much more on this. we also want to bring you the very latest updates on number of issues. first of all, administration expressed surprise when news first broke about the irs targeting conservative groups. it wasn't -- it was 18 months they did it. you heard a question on that a moment ago. when did anybody at the white house know. there have been high profile complaints about this practice going back to 2010. we'll be joined by the former solicitor general of the united states, ted olson. remember him. he successfully argued bush

v. gore and he will talk about how he believes there is an enemies' list at the white house and this has been going on. he rarely gives interviews. he is here today.

>>. eric holder as attorney general, he does his job with integrity and i expect he will continue to do so. >> megyn: that was president obama responding to questions about the attorney general.

eric holder and the department of justice and decision to order a controversial grab of phone records behind closed doors without advance notice to the a.p.. no objection was involved, no opportunity was given. doj says it made the decision as part of a probe who leaked classified information to the associated press a year or so ago. frustrated lawmakers tried to get details from an attorney general on capitol hill who suggested that he couldn't say much about this. watch. >> did you seek the a.p.'s assistance in the first place and why not? >> again, i don't know about the interaction between the a.p. and the justice departments. i was recused from the case. i don't have a factual basis to answer the questions because he was recused. i don't know what has happened. i don't know. i don't know. i assume he was, but i don't

know. >> megyn: i don't know. andrew mcare a kar think senior contributor and former prosecutor and put the blind sheik in jail. he recused himself when the whole thing started and recused himself. he said i'm out. delegated it all, but he went on to say -- i'm not sure who would would have signed off it. 95% the attorney general general cole -- how could he not know? >> part of it he is recused and he should not know. he should know who he has delegated things to. i think holder has so many problems giving conflicting answers to congress over the years that he has developed this habit which i guess if you were in his position you would probably cultivate and not go to give a clear answer that doesn't

have wiggle room. if he admits something and then gets caught on it, like maybe he did know something about it and there is some document that shows he has knowledge, then he has another problem. i think he gives these weasel answers. >> megyn: no way of pinning him down. isn't there a way, give us facts. what led you to recuse yourself? and more importantly, who are you going to put before us that can tell us why the a.p. was targeted. the law requires very limited circumstances who can walk us through it. forgive us we're not having a lot of trust in government these days. >> you shouldn't have a whole lot of trust in justice department in particular. i'm not a holder fan. there is a culture in the justice department when you are talking about an investigation you almost sound dishonest because you are not supposed to commented on it. if you have the problems that holder has had, it's almost

understandable that you could give an answer you could wiggle out of. >> megyn: let me ask you about this a.p. thing. you are tough on terror guy. a lot of the republicans defended these leak probes, although there were far fewer under president bush. leaking national security information that is going to endangering the lives of the american public. >> i was one of the biggest complainers during the bush years they did nothing about this. i applaud the obama administration for being concerned about national security leaks. i fault them for closing national security leaks they do the days not cracking down on it. >> megyn: they found it favorable to them. >> exactly. here is the thing. here in the u.s. attorney's office subpoenaing the press is a major big deal. when you do it you are supposed

to do a careful investigation so you narrow down the possibilities where the leak is coming from. i have known of cases they ask everybody in the government who might have known something that got leaked to file an affidavit. this thengo through the affidavits and figured out which reporter to talk to -- you can't stop people from lying, but assuming you have truthful information -- then you would have a narrow collection of people that you wanted want to follow up on. what they did here was scorch the earth for all of these different reporters evidently without having narrowed who the possible candidates of who the leak was from. so the decision was supposed to be in the justice department to prevent that thing from happening. you have line of prosecutors that want the information and they want to scorch the earth and people of justice department are to tell them, no, no. >> megyn: there sat first

amendment. there is freedom of the press? >> exactly. the real danger is listening to president obama's press conference, i think the media shield is a bad idea. what would be better would be media accountability. i'm afraid we will get sad weighed a bad law. >> megyn: let me shift gears to benghazi. i was talking about the president's comments -- i'm so confused about all the scandals. now i want to shift to the irs investigating conservative groups. the question is, how far does this go. the white house now, president obama is now very outraged about it. there is a question about whether the outrage is a day late and dollar short. we have had hundreds of conservative organizations stymied to collect collections

while the irs was perpetrating this scheme. so the bloomberg reporter asked president obama who in the white house knew about this hold on a second. i will pull up the exactly what she asked. can you assure the american people that nobody in the white house knew about the irs's actions before your counsel's office found out about the i.g. probe. let's hear what the president said. >> i can assure you that i certainly did not know anything about the i.g. report before the i.g. report had been leaked through press. >> megyn: then the associated press comes out with this headline. obama assures that he did not know about political targeting before reports became public. that is not what he assured? >> you did a nonresponsive

answer. i'm going implied admission. there is a principle of the law that says, if the answer screams out to be no, and you don't give a no answer it's like saying yes. he didn't answer the question. it's very clear he was asked what did you folks in the white house know -- he wasn't asked about the i.g. report. he said i didn't know anything about the i.g. report. the question is what did you know in the white house -- about the irs. that would be number one. i would be suspicious that the white house knew exactly what was going on. second thing, as important as the law is and the regulations of an agency is the ethos of the agency. we saw this in the 90s where they had the regulations people felt like they shouldn't cooperate. they went on irs because they felt it was okay to do the thing

>> megyn: we're going to talk to ted olson, he thinks two things are related. andy mccarthy. we've got breaking news from washington. we are tracking reports the doj have been unable to locate two known suspects in the terror attack attack.

>> megyn: fox news alert. president obama taking questions on the trifecta of trosts. but one lawmaker say they all stem from the culture of

intimidation that he blames on the president. >> so whether it's the associated press, whether it's witnesses at the state department. or whether it's using the irs to go after groups that don't agree with the obama agenda, this administration has created a culture of intimidation through the campaign and through the white house throughout the federal government. >> joining me is richard former assistant to from the clinton and tony, assistant to jack kemp. let me start with you richard as democrat, your thoughts on the culture of intimidation? >> i think -- i don't think there is a culture of intimidation. i think there is very unfortunate events that have come together, but i think on the benghazi issue, you know, serious issues of national security and why there wasn't sufficient security at the embassy, but this nonsense about these talking points. there was some bureaucratic in-fighting.

that is common in washington for both parties. on the errs thing, neither the president or nor his political advisors are anywhere near any of those two issues. any attempt to draw these together is misguided and the american people will not buy it. >> megyn: if that is true, why didn't the president come out and say, i did not have any knowledge of this at all prior to this week or couple weeks ago. you heard what he said? >> at some point the president has to assume responsibility for his administration. these aren't just bureaucratic agencies. these are executive level administrations and agencies and departments. doj who are under the president's leadership. if he is really that disconnected with the function of government and his executive branch. that is big problem. number two, you are not talked about intimidation the kind of intimidation in this case the

irs targets theic enemies. where the department of justice goes after reporters' phone records violating their right to privacy. you are not just talking about tactics press. you're not talking about tactics, but talking about a government that has expansive under this president executive control and power. this is the problem, megyn. this is a president who believes it has no real limits and this shows it. whether or not he was in charge of it or knew of it, this is the culture he's created. >> the irs thing is disturbing. there's a guy named frank van der sloot, a major romney donor. he was subjected to three federal audits after being attacked by president obama's ca talking about it this week. he was called out specifically by them. he says this is all part of a long going campaign against conservatives. >> well, if there ends up being any evidence that the irs

targeted conservatives for political reasons -- >> other than what we already know? >> well, there is -- >> i don't think that we know it was for political reasons. i think we know that there was political targeting, but it's not -- >> pick it up there. we'll pick it up right there after this break. look what mommy is having. mommy's having a french fry. yes she is, yes she is. [ bop ] [ male announcer ] could've had a v8. 100% vegetable juice, with three of your daily vegetable servings in every little bottle.

>> identity theft was a huge, huge problem for me and it's gone away because of lifelock. >> announcer: while no one can stop all identity theft, if criminals do steal your information, lifelock will help fix it, with our $1 million service guarantee. don't wait until you become the next victim. you have so much to protect and nothing to lose when you call lifelock now to get two full months of identity theft protection risk free. that's right, 60 days risk-free. use promo code: gethelp. if you're not completely satisfied, notify lifelock and you won't pay a cent. order now and also get this shredder to keep your documents out of the wrong hands--

a $29 dollar value, free. get protected now. call the number on your screen or go to lifelock.com to try lifelock protection risk free for a full 60 days. use promo code: gethelp. plus get this document shredder free-- but only if you act right now. call the number on your screen now! so you were saying that the irs did do bad things against conservative groups but we don't know whether they did it for political reasons. and you wanted to respond to that? >> the criteria, megyn. let's look at it in all fairness to my colleague, rich here, people's whose names were patriot, complaining about government debt, tea party specifically. >> or the way that the country is run. >> or the way that the country is run. so clearly this is a politically driven agenda. you can say it may not have been ordered by the president, which i think in and of itself is weak

because clearly he's created again a culture in which going after your political opponents, ala richard nixon, is completely acceptable if it makes your agenda move forward. >> can

. . our country needs more college grads to help fill all the open technology jobs.

to help meet that need, here at devry university, we're offering $4 million dollars in tech scholarships for qualified new students. learn more at devry.edu.

fox news alert. a major development on the obama administration's attempt to address the controversy behind changes to the infamous talking points. in the terror attack that killed four americans in benghazi last summer. welcome, everyone. i'm megyn kelly. the state department now holding its first news conference since the white house released some 100 pages of e-mails related to the benghazi terror attack. keep in mind, it did not want to release these e-mails to the public initially. but then some were leaked to a couple of reporters. the administration leaked one that it thought was helpful to it. then came the call to release all of them and now we have gotten about a hundred.

congress says in total there are 25,000. the administration released the documents late yesterday that were exchanged among officials in the white house, state department and intel community, all of whom helped shape the talking points following the assault that left four americans dead. the internal document show this administration, the state department and the white house in particular had a very big hand in crafting the final story. and that directly contradicts was told was the role of the white house in this matter. james rosen has the very latest. james? >> reporter: megyn, good afternoon. a number of public statements about benghazi from jay carney and about the involvement of the white house and the reshaping of the 12 versions of the talking points appear to be contradicted by the information contained in the e-mails. here is one such statement. >> but the only

were stylistic and nonsubstantive. they corrected the description of the building or the facility in benghazi from consulate to diplomatic facility and the like. >> reporter: yet, at 6:48 p.m. on the fateful friday, september 14th, national security council spokesman tommy vitor alerted that john brennan and now a cia director, quote, will have edits to the talking points. four minutes later, they were e-mailed out which included him deleting that the attackers hailed from quote, across from many sectors of libyan society. also, carnjay carney said it wa a premeditated attack, wherein fbi and cia state repeatedly that al qaeda was involved. indeed, at one point, a cia

official said added we revised the document with their concerns in mind. now, major player in all of that was then state department spokeswoman victoria nuland. at 7:16 p.m., she e-mailed quote, the line about knowing there were extremists among the demonstrate evers will come back to us at podium. how do we know, who are they? 23 minutes later without any reply to her earlier e-mail, she wrote again, quote, i just had a convo with redacted name and added on that basis i have serious concerns about all the parts highlighted below. that's when she commenced the argument we have been reporting on for more than a week now, about whether or not we want to be feeding any narratives about how cia gave previous warnings and so forth. >> as i read these talking points that were originally put together by the cia, they do make reference to a spontaneous attack, then they change it to spontaneous demonstration. what they say is this is the

first version before our state department weighed in. we believe based on the currently available info, that it was spontaneously inspired by the protests at the u.s. embassy in cairo. to me that in part answers the question of how the video got injected into this. because the protests over in cairo were based at least in part on the video. and so that could be where they started to go with this video narrative. now, what the original talking points also had tons of references to terror and prior warnings of a surveillance on the benghazi consulate. all of which put the initial comment in context and that was removed. does this now answer the question of who first injected the video into the matter? >> it doesn't. i mean, obviously it comes from the talking points themselves, hailed from within or emanate from within the intelligence community. you are astute to put your finger on this question of how

there was any reporting about a demonstration. let's remember the testimony at the may 8 hearing last week of greg hicks the number two u.s. diplomat in libya on the whole question about whether there was a protest or a demonstration outside the benghazi compound. >> so did you report to anyone in washington within the first couple of days that there is anything in connection -- a protest in connection to a youtube video? >> no, the only report that our mission made through every channel was that there had been an attack on a consulate. >> was there i think in -- anything in connection to the youtube video? was there any awareness that it was the events occurred because of a youtube video? >> the youtube video was a nonevent in libya. >> now, back home in washington, the state department officials there also knew that there was never any demonstration or protest outside the benghazi compound prior to the attack. we know that from the testimony

of the state department officials last october. the cia also knew better because this station chief in tripoli on the 12th of september cabled back that this was a terrorist attack. perhaps the best that could be said for the inclusion of demonstrations and protests and even the early versions of the talking points was that there was perhaps an instance here of analytic laziness that is to say we observed a lot of protests outside u.s. installations around the world on the 10th of september. we have this situation on the 11th. it must be part and parcel of the same thing. >> james rosen, thank you. >> thank you. for more, we're joined by simon rosenberg, president of a left-leaning think tank. and mark tooesen, a former speechwriter for president george w. bush. your reaction to the report we went through, mark? >> well, it is shocking.

the fact -- look, we have been hearing for months now that susan rice just went out and read the intelligence assessment, the objective intelligence assessment that was provided to her. first of all, we know that she -- that was an assessment did not include a mention of an internet video. she inserted that herself. we knew that there was a huge fight in what over -- in what should be said in the talking points and it was victoria nuland who asked for the removal of the reference to the fact she had been warned about the threats to the benghazi. they were saying her -- i'll give you her reason for it was because why do we want the hill to be fingering al shari'ah until we have the investigation results? they were not willing to blame al qaeda who they believed was behind the attack until there

was a completed investigation. but they were willing to blame an internet video and a demonstration that never happened without any evidence whatsoever. what are the differences between the two things? al qaeda attack is embarrassing for the president. and for the administration because he just completed a convention where he said that al qaeda was on the run. but in an internet video is not embarrassing for them. so this was clearly a cya operation. that's what we're seeing out of these e-mails. >> simon if she had said what the memo said, that we believe these attacks were spontaneously inspired by the protests at u.s. embassies in cairo which were based on the video, but i want to contexturalize that for you. there had been five other attacks, that the benghazi compound had been under surveillance. that ansar al shari'ah was on the rise and had been making threats and that the cia station chief reported this is a terrorist attack we wouldn't have these problems.

>> well, i don't think that we have learned anything new in the last couple of weeks. >> what? >> we have known -- i'm answering your question, megyn. >> did you know that the state department was heavily involved in editing the talking points? >> megyn, i'm going to answer your question, which is that we know that there were terrible mistakes made on the ground in libya that allowed this tragic event to happen. we know that for several weeks afterwards the administration was confused about what happened. >> no, they weren't. no. no, they weren't. we don't know that. >> megyn, i think that the -- all the back and forth that you have seen in the e-mails make it clear that there was not consensus about what had happened and that consensus really arrived four or five days later after the susan rice testimony when everything kind of settled down. >> but you're dodging my question about did you know that the state department was so heavily involved in editing these talking points which jay carney directly told us did not happen. >> i don't think it's surprising. i mean, i think that as i said on this show literally ten other times in the last several months, there was tremendous confusion, bureaucratic

confusion in the aftermath of this tragic event. >> listen, i have to tell you it is sprieurprising. i may be naive but jay carney said this. >> the white house and the state department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made -- to the talking points by either of those two -- these two institutions were changing the word consulate to diplomatic facility. that originated from the intelligence community. they reflected the best assessments of what they thought had happened. >> maybe i'm just naive because i was still believing jay carney until i saw this evidence, mark. >> well, simon said he has been on this show ten times saying that there was confusion. he's actually been on the show ten times saying susan rice read

what was handed to her. >> i never said that her. >> it was the state department that had removed the reference they had been warned repeatedly that al qaeda had carried out the attacks. it was the state department that took out the reference to al shari'ah, which would have put it in context and the state department was actively editing the comments. the fact is that the talking points were so bad, the e-mails with edon't have that i really want to see are the ones where hillary clinton turns down the chance to go on the sunday shows and petraeus turned down going on the sunday shows. why did susan rice who obama say had nothing to do with benghazi come out and speak? it was because no one wanted to deliver the talking points? >> did jay carney mislead us or didn't he? e appears today that what jay carney said in november i guess it was --

>> then again in may. >> okay. i want to say one thing about ansar al shari'ah, is that general petraeus said that he wanted to reference to ansar al shari'ah out of the talking points because he was concerned about tipping our hands and letting them know we were coming after him. he actively sought to remove the reference to ansar al shari'ah. you can look at the public testimony. so the point i'm trying to make here is that i don't think anything has materially changed. in this we know there's confusion. >> but i think you undermine your argument when you -- when you gloss over -- >> i don't think anybody was misleadi misleading anyone. >> you just said jay carney, he made a mistake in november and in may, come on, simon! >> there were mistakes made in this. >> it's not a mistake to say that it was only stylistic changes and only one word was changed. that's not a mistake when now know that the white house was

meeting offen this issue. can we have some honesty? i have to go. thank you, guys. up next, breaking news on reports that the doj lost track of a couple of terror suspects. plus, incredible video of the tornados in texas. i'm so glad you called. thank you.

we're not in london, are we? no. why? apparently my debit card is. what? i know. don't worry, we have cancelled your old card. great. thank you. in addition to us monitoring your accounts for unusual activity, you could also set up free account alerts. okay.

[ female announcer ] at wells fargo we're working around the clock to help protect your money and financial information. here's your temporary card. welcome back. how was london? [ female announcer ] when people talk, great things happen. okay, i want to ask you about the irs. can you assure the american people that nobody in the white house knew about the agencies' actions before your council office found out on april 22? and when they did find out, do you think that skwlouf -- do you think you should have learned about it before you learned about it from news reports as you said last friday? >> i can assure you that i certainly did not know anything about the i.g. report before the i.g. report had been leaked through press -- through the press. >> well, president obama speaking a short time ago in a news conference saying he did not personally know about the

inspector general report. not going so far as to say he didn't know about the irs behavior and not speaking about what people in the white house knew prior to the i.g. report. but he didn't say whether -- well, he didn't speak to the knowledge within the white house. that reporter pointed out that the president claims he first learned about the irs scandal from the news. the same place he said he found out about the controversy of the doj spying on the associated press. comedy central jon stewart had a bit of fun with that. >> mr. president, when did you find out about the irs? targeting conservative groups. >> i first learned about it from the same news reports that i think most people learned about this. i think it was on friday. >> run that up the flag pole before that -- the acting irs who has known about it for the whole year. i think it was on friday, i think. what was that day i found out

that incredibly powerful arm of the government may be using its force for political purposes? let's see, oh, the beer summit with bill ayers and reverend wright was on sunday. and then i randomly listened in to phone calls and sent off drones. i was at the mosque praying, so yeah, friday. >> oh. joining me is david webb of the david webb show. and a fox news contributor and former adviser to frank lautenberg. you have to laugh. his point is and a lot of people feel it's not plausible that he would be learning about the major matters from, you know, fox, cnn? i don't know what he was watching, but he claims he -- >> a tweet or two. >> either somebody probably should have filled him in on it, and if they didn't that's pretty shoddy. he might have known about it earlier. in which case he might have known earlier.

either way it's not excusable. you're the president of the united states and the buck does t stop with you. i understand the bureaucracy exists and the subordinates takes the fall for it. that happens in every administration. but to say that you weren't aware of it either means that your staff isn't doing the job of making you aware of it, or that you may have been aware of it and you're not being as forth coming as you should have been. >> particularly on the irs thing, that the i.g. reporters are going on, they're investigating this, it was well known in the irs that this had gone on. they tried to take corrective action and got overruled. they continued to do it. and nobody ever brings this up to the executive level discussion? >> this is a president who by the way on his way to baltimore tomorrow for a campaign stop maybe he can check the news reports, i'll take the jon stewart approach on this. do you believe the carrier

pigeons that go from the white house chief counsel's office that couldn't land on the window in almost a month? this is not only reprehensible, but inexcusable behavior. president obama is supposed to be the smartest person in the room. he's needed to run the company. but june 2011, lowest learner, the issue is retroactive to december 2008, to the tax exempt status in one month for the barack h. foundation. doug shonen -- irs commissioner at the time. and then steve miller, and then the white house chief counsel in april of this year. this is ridiculous if you want to believe that the president is so obviously not aware of anything going on. you know what in is like to me when you look at hillary clinton, all of this going on and the state department and president obama. when you investigate the mob, do you not look at everybody involved and see that? >> that's the question, when it

comes one after the other it sounds better. president obama saying, i don't know anything about that irs thing. i just learned about it on the tv. same thing for the a.p. investigation. hillary clinton saying i didn't know anything about the multiple cables begging for security in benghazi. when you hear it all together and jay carney saying i don't know anything either, who is minding the shop? >> the eric holder situation, what happened with the a.p. to me is incredibly reprehensible. no excuse for i. same with the irs. at the end of the day, heads need to roll. does the president of the united states know about everything that goes on, i don't know. i suspect that not only the acting head of the irs -- >> how about the people who did it? >> the people who did it yesterday should have been -- >> but they're not! >> i don't know why they're still there. because it's time to go. should have taken a hike when this first came to light. i think they're civil servants and it's hard to fire them. >> that's the gsa.

>> exactly right. but, you know, yeah, i'll say this -- this is not a partisan issue. the buck stops with you, you're the guy in charge. >> i have to leave it there. thank you, both. coming up, reports that the doj is missing some terror suspects. and just give them the basics, you know. i got this. [thinking] is it that time? the son picks up the check? [thinking] i'm still working. he's retired. i hope he's saving. i hope he saved enough. who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. whether you're just starting your 401(k) or you are ready for retirement, we'll help you get there. with delicious pringles stix.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ a deliciously unique snack. everything pops with pringles stix. [ crunch ]

makes it easy for ann to manage her finances when she's on the go. even when she's not going anywhere. citi tablet apps. easier banking. standard at citibank. easier banking. so you can make easy, no-fee reloads with cash and checks... ♪ ♪ and know you're not on your own. so you can get the reloadable card that keeps up with you.

chase liquid. so you can.

helps him deposit his checks. jay also like it when mother nature helps him wash his car. mother nature's cool like that. citibank mobile check deposit. easier banking. standard at citibank. fox news alert, new concerns that the justice department lost track of known or suspected terrorists who were supposed to be the department's -- in the department's witness protection program. mo molly henneberg in washington. the news is so joyful. >> reporter: that's right. the justice department officials say the two suspected terrorists are not fugitives. they are quote, accounted for. and that they left the u.s. and left the witness security or witness protection program quote years ago.

that's what they're saying now. this is in response to the new report by the inspector general who said as of last july, the marshal service was unable to locate the two former witness security identified as known or suspected terrorists. the justice department said today this program is voluntary and witnesses can decide to leave it, but they didn't say why or when the two people left the program. also, another problem in the witness security program. they're given new names and identities, but the justice department was not authorizing the new names to be disclosed to the transportation security administration to be put on the no fly list. even if the people were suspected terrorists. the report says quote, therefore it was possible for known or suspected terrorists to fly in or over the united states and evade one of the government's primary means of identifying and tracking terrorist movements and actions. the justice department says that problem has now been fixed.

and went on to say in the statement released today, quote, to date, the fbi has not identified a national security threat tied to the participation of terrorism linked witnesses in the witness security program. the justice department agrees with the inspector general's audit report that the witness security programs requirements for admitting and monitoring r participants needed on the enhanced. and the statement goes on to say that no terrorism linked witness has ever committed an act of terrorism after entering the program. >> thank you, molly. also in washington, the administration is expressing shock at this week's news about the irs. targeting conservative groups. but there have been high profile washington complaints about conservatives being unfairly targeted by the administration. going back to at least 2010. up next, we'll have a very special guest we've never had

him on "american live." ted olson, about how his clients went public, a very welled american and lawyer and what he calls a presidential enemy's list.

we had members of congress complaining about this for two years. did it never reach you guys here at the white house? that there was these complaints that conservative groups felt they were being singled out and

targeted? >> i mean, i'm not sure that -- i'm sure people were aware of the stories that had been reported about the complaints, but were not aware of any activity. or of any review conducted by the inspector general until several weeks ago. >> more calls now for an independent investigation into the irs and its admitted practice of targeting conservative groups seeking tax exempt status. today, how limited this practice was really was. for example, in august of 2010, president obama's then chairman of the council of the economic advise evers austan goolsbee revealed that koch industries which is opposed to much of president obama's agenda, allegedly paid no income taxes. since koch is a private company, its tax records were not public. at first, the white house claimed that information had been made public. koch denied that. then it claimed that mr. goolsbee was only speculating

about the tax data and the irs promise toed to look into the matter but the report was never made public. this week an inspector general report revealed at this very same time, the irs had an entire team of specialists devoted to targeting certain conservative organizations raising new questions about trust in government. joining me now, ted olson. the former solicitor general of the united states under president bush. he represents koch industries and in february of 2012 he wrote an op-ed accusing president obama of creating a quote, enemies' list. mr. olson, a pleasure to have you on. i want to tell my viewer, some are familiar with you, some are not. in addition to being voted one of the most influential 100 people in the world by "time" magazine you have argued cases in front of the supreme court. you argued successfully bush v.

gore in the supreme court. you have served as an appointee of president obama to the councils of the united states. you have worked for republican ming administrations, but you have worked to push for the legalization of gay marriage. so you're not a pure partisan. although most of your work has been on the gop side. and now you find yourself representing a company that employs tens of thousands of americans, that you say has been targeted by president obama and this business we have seen with the irs going after conservatives does not come as a huge surprise to you. tell us, sir. >> well, it's very, very disturbing. as you pointed out i wrote that piece in february of last year. so this is 16 months ago. we were concerned with an orchestrated campaign starting at the very top of the white house to attack and disparage the koch family and their

enterprises. they employ 50,000 people in america. they have given millions of dollars to fights against cancer and other philanthropic entities. and they -- they're conscientious citizens. they believe in citizen participation in government. they have spent a lot of money contributing to organizations that support free enterprise and limited government. now, it's very disturbing that the auditor report that just came out two days ago showed that the irs was targeting organizations that were concerned about limited government, the debt and criticizing the size of government. it was not just conservatives, it's anybody who was someone that was questioning government. and in this country, it's fundamental to our constitution, to our society, and to our government that we be able to criticize our government. for the government then to send

its tax agencies after organizations or people that are critical of government is very, very scary. >> the treatment that koch industries has gotten from this administration has been controversial. i mean, they were named repeatedly in barack obama's re-election campaign by team obama. they were demonized by team obama. private citizens again. then it was detelegraphed in a letter by tim mussina that specifically said -- and you tell me whether this was a harbinger of things to come, when you attempt to drown out the people's voices through unlimited secret contributions to push sue a special interest agenda that conflicts with what is best our nation, you must expect scrutiny of our actions. >> isn't that appalling? what was done by the koch family and their contributions was permitted and explicitly

approved by the first amendment. they were participating in government by allowing themselves to express their views about government, what it should look like. and enabling other people to support free enterprise and limited government. that is what it is all about. if you are targeted by a very powerful government. if you are named and -- as critical by the white house and top officials in government, those agencies of government are going to go after you. it is like henry ii said who will rid me of this meddlesome priest which resulted in the murder of thomas beckett. it is very damaging for people that are given a great authority in our government to select private citizens for castigation like that. it has consequences and now we're seeing those consequences. >> do you believe because in your op-ed as you point out you suggest that this campaign

against certain conservatives including the koch brothers, you write has been choreographed from the very top. now, the irs and the administration want us to believe that the current scandal was borne out of the cincinnati determinations unit. they examined the tax exempt statuses, and some washington involvement, but that's it. doesn't touch the white house and the white house isn't responsible for this behavior. >> no, as you pointed out in that clip that you played, there were complaints about this that was on going for the last couple of years that the irs was targeting conservative organizations. the white house said it didn't know anything about it, but what did it ask? why did it no try to find out? why not the president himself say wait a minute, he said just this week it's outrageous. but those reports were out there and someone needs to ask the president and others in the

white house why didn't you look into it? if you did, if you didn't look into it, why didn't you look into it? because you knew from reports that citizens of this country were being attacked and targeted by the internal revenue service. why wasn't something done? now, there's an acting head of the internal revenue service that was fired yesterday. why didn't that happen long ago if that individual was not taking responsibility for these reports? there's something very wrong here and we don't know the answer to it. but we do know that citizens knew this was happening, that editorial that op-ed i wrote was 16 months ago. no one in our government did anything about it to protect the citizens of this country from their own government. that is very scary and very damaging. >> in that op-ed you wrote about how we have a system of separated powers and checks and balances in order to inhibit the exercise of tyrannical power by government officials. how big do you think this is?

>> well, it is huge. we have this country, because we had a revolution against exactly that type of tyrannical conduct. the framers of our constitution used the exact words that i was quoting in that op-ed piece to protect our citizens to protect our liberty and our freedom from exercise of tyrannical power by government. that's why we have the constitution that we have. so you give immense power to people in authority, but you expect them to exercise it with restraint and responsibility and according to the rule of law. that obviously did not happen here, it was an out of control government. there was no management. no control and we have seen it in various different connections this week, but it's been happening for years now and people have been complaining about it and nothing was done about it. so, you know, the slogan is the fish rots from the head. you have to look at the top of

government when the subordinates of the white house, the subordinates of the president are acting in an uncontrolled way to damage the rights of individual citizens. we have to hold the very top of this government responsible for that. >> ted olson, an honor to speak with you, sir. thank you for being here. >> thank you. follow me on twitter @megyn kelly. a big update on the o.j. simpson hearing as prosecutors try to debunk a key claim being pursued by simpson's legal team in his effort to get out of jail. i need you. i feel so alone. but you're not alone. i knew you'd come. like i could stay away. you know i can't do this without you. you'll never have to. you're always there for me. shh! i'll get you a rental car.

i could also use an umbrella. fall in love with progressive's aivice. and i have a massive heart attack right in my driveway. the doctor put me on a bayer aspirin regimen. [ male announcer ] be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. go talk to your doctor. you're not indestructible anymore.

[ dog ] we found it together.upbeat ] on a walk, walk, walk. love to walk. yeah, we found that wonderful thing. and you smiled. and threw it. and i decided i would never, ever leave it anywhere. because that wonderful, bouncy, roll-arod thing... had made you play. and that... had made you smile. [ announcer ] beneful. play. it's good for you.

humans. we are beautifully imperfect creatures living in an imperfect world. that's why liberty mutual insurance has your back, offering exclusive products like optional better car replacement, where if your car is totaled, we give you the money call... and ask an insurance expert about all our benefits today, like our 24/7 support and service, because at liberty mutual insurance, we believe our customers do their best out there in the world, so we do everything we can to be there for them when they need plus, you could save hundreds when you switch, up to $423. call... today.

liberty mutual insurance -- res. what's your policy? well, some big developments as disgraced former football great o.j. simpson fights to get out of prison. the state is showing things that is against their claims. he claims he was inconvicted because he was too drunk to realize his accomplices had guns. that's the latest. it was the alcohol that made him do it, alicea. >> that's what they're trying to say. but on the stand today, megyn, was dr. gregory brown. he's a forensic psychiatrist who is brought in to rebut expert testimony from the simpson's team and his own testimony that he was drunk on the night of the robbery. there's surveillance video as you know from back in 2007 of

simpson and his partners that night. simpson says he never had a chance to tell jurors he had been drinking for six hours that day. and did not know his accomplices had guns. now, dr. brown testified o.j. did not show sufficient behavior for someone who was drunk. he could walk, use the stairs, et cetera. the state played an audiotape that was reported in -- inside that hotel room. >> so there were a lot of angry voices in the audiotape. but none of the voices appeared to have particularly slurred speech or impaired speech. they were clear, angry and direct. >> and the emotion of it, expecting to see family photos he hadn't seen in 15 or 10 years that could add to it too, correct? >> part of simpson's team argument is his attorney never brought up the drunk issue. now, we'll see what ga lalanters

to say about this. he's on the stand tomorrow. >> that will be interesting. thank you. "kelly's court" is back in session. joining me to discuss it is a former defense attorney. oh, boo-hoo, it was the alcohol that made me do it. i was so drunk that i had to go commit an armed robbery, mark. >> yes. yes. throw this case out already, megyn. listen, i was very confident when i said numerous times this is a motion for a field trip, not a motion for a new trial because that is all that he's going to get out of this. galan galanter, a 30-year veteran, will not take the stand tomorrow and say, you know what, i committed malpractice. gee, even though it's 101 in the criminal arena to convey plea offers to defendants, oh, gosh, i forgot. let me fall on the sword for o.j. simpson. it ain't gonna happen. >> i like the picture we had up of o.j.

of o.j., because look he's saying, huh, alcohol? you mean that was a defense? let's raise that. let's say i was drunk, and my lawyer didn't tell me i could raise that as a defense. >> now it's high -- as high as mark's ethics are, i will tell you my first major murder trial was one that was about to be covered by "60 minutes" and "48 hours" and i was going to be 32 and when the prosecutor came in and changed the offer from 22 years to life to a flat 6 years. i have no problem telling you, your honor, that at that point in my career, to have a national case get flushed down the toilet was a source of tension internally. of course, i did the right thing and told my client to take the six years. this is out of the realm of possibility when you're representing o.j. simpson, i don't need to tell you about the plea bargain. you have to tell your client

about any plea offer. if they can prove he didn't do that, then that is a reason for this judge to at least give -- this judge to at least give -- seemed like he was laughing and joking too much, and made a remark, the only thing i wish we had -- the d.a.'s case is a joke and i wish we had a jury right then and there. that's basically it. because he thought the case was so laughable. >> megyn: mark? >> loving publicity doesn't prove this case, and even arthur conceded when he was a young lawyer he still did the right thing. >> hold on. art, you are right. so i will concede it is possible, it is theoretically possible that oj can win this, but i can say anything is

theoretically possible when the chance are so low, it provens on almost no real value. >> after the break we'll play you the latest in oj's own testimony.

>> that's why you need lifelock. lifelock offers the most comprehensive identity theft protection available, monitoring billions of data thieves before they strikety and with lifelock 24/7 proactive protection, you're alerted by text, phone or email as soon as they detect suspicious activity in their network-- before it's too late. >> you have to be proactive to protect yourself from crime. and that's especially true of identity theft. that's why i'm a member of lifelock. >> announcer: absolutely no one can protect you better than lifelock. [♪...]

order now and get this document shredder, a $29 value, free. protect yourself now with lifelock. [click click, ♪...] >> ever show you the references in discovery to your drinking privately? >> no. >> did they ever tell you it's a possible fact you could use -- a fact you could use is in your defense? >> absolutely not. >> megyn: mark, arthur, if that is true, is it a problem? >> that's a perfect way to put it. it's a problem. it's not like, okay, per se, reversal, but it's one thing that a judge has to take into

consideration, and megyn, the hardest thing for this judge to do is to pretend this is -- to not make this about oj simpson. she has to make it about any defendant in that position. it can't be oj simpson. it's got to be this defendant, whose lawyer may not have told him bat plea bargain, didn't tell him about the alcohol defense. the one answer oj gave yesterday i didn't like was the prosecutor said, your attorney advised you not to testify. yes. and you did what he told you to do. yes. i would have liked -- >> asked me not to testify -- >> can't pick and choose. >> megyn: the most damaging thing arthur alluded to earlier is they can prove the attorney failed to convey a plea bargain officer, and there was testimony that he could have gotten as little as 30 months in prison if he had pleaded robbery.

simpson said he was never told that. and the prosecutor said there were preliminary discussions about a plea bargain. >> this all comes down to what yale is going to say tomorrow and the only one apaperly who believes that yale is going to take a bullet for oj simpson is arthur, who still believes -- >> i think yale is going to -- yes, it was my strategy in the case he should not testify and the followed the strategy of my case. which would be ground for it not to be reversed. i think he is going to defend himself. >> megyn: he shed-he aid, and who has more credible? got to leave it at that. right back. we had never used a contractor before

and didn't know where to start. at angie's list, you'll find reviews on everything from home repair to healthcare written by people just like you. no company can pay to be on angie's list, so you can trust what you're reading. angie's list is like having thousands of close neighbors where i can go ask for personal recommendations. that's the idea. before you have any work done, check angie's list. from roofers to plumbers to dentists and more, angie's list -- reviews you can trust. i love you, angie. sorry, honey.

>> megyn: thanks for watching. >> shepard: the question from the bloomberg reporter to the president about whether anybody at the white house new what the irs was doing before the report came out, was awesome, and we are now check with the white house to find out why his answer was nonresponsive. >> megyn: maybe we'll get a followup between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. >> shepard: we'll get a followup. see you later. news begins anew on studio b. another headache for the obama administration. a just released government report says the feds lost track of some suspected terrorists. the jet department is fighting back in a big way against the claims. the latest controversy it's trying to tamp down. at the white house, another