a little pep to your step when your hair is done nice, right? >> i sure do. good for them. >> very cool. thanks for joining us, everybody. >> "america live" starts right now. fox news alert on the end of the big summit meeting and the start of new questions about america's relationship with russia. and whatever happened to that big reset? welcome to "america live". i'm megyn kelly. president obama just leaving ireland for germany after wrapping up talks with g-8 leaders. they all agreed to promote peace talks on syria, but were unable to see eye to eye on specifics. at the heart of the matter, a deep divide between the west and vladimir putin. it was just four years ago that president obama's then secretary of state hillary clinton met with her russian counterpart and literally gave him a reset button. although it turned out to not say repet and he called her out on that and it was really

awkward, but she tried to set the reset button with him. and then you fast forward to this week and the relationship appears to be anything but thawed after a very icy meeting between mr. obama and mr. putin. look at the body language. that picture says it all. our post of power play is with us. looking through the editorial today on that meeting talking about how they looks tense, each repeatedly clenching his jaw, looking at the carpet, a frosty encounter between the two men and on and on it went about how poorly this went, doctor were we in this position and why did it go down this way? >> maybe it's about bob kraft's super bowl ring from the patriots. i'm not sure. >> which he stole. >> well, but we have cultural differences. the czar, you're not supposed to show the czar something unless you want him to take it. and so that's just a cultural

difference. >> good to know. >> yeah, seriously. the reality is for the president, they mocked and derided george w. bush who looked into putin's eyes and saw -- understood him and taunted and mocked that they could have a better relationship. well, we have probably the worst relationship right now that we've had with the russians since the cold war. and it's because from putin's point of view that he feels like he can shove obama around a good bit on the national stage. if you look at syria which is the central bone of contention right now, putin has a simple message which is he's not going to arm the people who eat the hearts of their enemies and shoot children in the street for defiling islam. it may be simplistic, but it's straightforward and he's content in telling his people that his voters such as they are when they get to vote about what's

going on in the war. the president says you can't understand to his voters. it's complicated, we're backing some islamist militants, but there are good ones and we're giving them guns but it's complicated and trust me on this, if you knew what i know, you'd be for me. well, which one of those is going to play better? and putin has the upper hand here because he can openly back the murderous assad regime and his citizens don't mind. president obama is trying a little bit to help the rebels and his citizens do mind very much. >> and that's the question. where is our trump card and have we completely misplayed our hand on syria. because in asking for putin to reverse himself and he's been arming the assad regime, we need to have leverage. we don't appear to have any. we just say we'd like you to stop doing that, britain and france feel the same if that helps at all and we're at a point now where we can't do anything apparently to persuade

mr. putin that we have the moral high ground. and even 70% of the american people are questioning whether this is something that we should do according to the latest pew poll. >> the great hinge about russian history is that nothing is ever new. when it comes to the way that the russians and their leaders ent interact on the world stage, they believe they are the true protectors of christianity, they believe they are the true seat of power, they believe it's their job to be the great power in the world. and the president doesn't look at it that way, he's looked for shared collaborative leadership. for putin, it plays fantastically back home to say not only are we standing up to the united states, but we're standing up against islamists. this is a big hit in russia where people have been victimized in very real ways by chechen and other islamist militants. so putin totally has lhis way o

this. for obama, how do you convince somebody to give you something when putin doesn't want anything for you. the only thing obama has to offer is lessening our missile defenses and putin can just wait and see. >> we've already done some of that. when you see the shot of the two of them sitting together and it is frosty looking and the body language said it all, you have to wonder. just before they went to this meeting, it came out that we spied on medvedev in his role as president. and there was a question about whether that may have affected the relationship between the two men and you could k. sort of see the thought bubbles coming out of their heads. from putin, you spied. and from obama, you stole. would it ever get off on the right foot.

but the president as you mentioned trying to defend our push for syria. and his defense appears to be you can't understand it unless you've been in the situation room. well, that won't help with will putin at all. but is it going to help with the american people is this la? last i checked, we don't get to go this there. >> jay-z and beyonce get to, but most of us do not get to go into the situation room. the president at a moment when his government is at a low ebb and lowering ebb of confidence with the american people comes back to this argument that says, hey, look, trust me, if you knew what i knew, if you could understand what i understand, you would think my policy about this modified limited intervention hangout in syria is a good judgeidea. but this is like the slow walk on the irs, department of justice, kathleen sebelius and on and on. if you knew, if you could really understand what we're doing, you'd see it was for the good. that doesn't wash overseas any

better than it does at home. >> and we've heard similar messages from those who opposed obamacare. you just don't understand it enough. and whole different story when you're talking about national security and sending small arms and entering an islamist civil war. it was one thing nine months ago. it is a very different looking conflict right now. and where is the presidential press conference, where is our commander in chief? silence is not leadership and we'll debate that coming up. as mentioned, president obama is travel to ing to germa. delivering a speech nearly 50 years to day after president kennedy delivered a ground breaking address. five years ago, some 200,000 people showed up to hear then

presidenti presidential candidate speak. this year's speech expected to be much more subdued given in front of a vetted audience of a couple thousand. a it costs amid signs that germany's love affair with president obama has officially ended. locals says his administration has not lived it up to expectations. also new details about a stunning federal raid targeting a dozen 7-eleven stores. at least nine franchise owners facing serious charges after being accused of operating what is described as a modern day slavery network. trace gallagher has more live in los angeles. >> could be just the tip of the iceberg because the feds are executing up to 40 other rnt with warrants around the country. as far as these nine, they're accusing them of bringing in workers into this country and

then they would conceal their identities by stealing other identities from dead people and children and then when they work 100 hour plus week, they would submit all that information to the 7-eleven payroll headquarters and when the checks came in, the owners would take up to 75%. this has been going on since 2000 to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. on top of that, the store owners also owned these boarding houses where the workers would actually live and then they would charge them cash to live there. the feds have now seized franchise rights of all 14 of the stores they raided. listen. >> they are instantly recognizable to anyone who has run out for cigarettes or taken a road trip. but inside of this familiar red, green and orange striped facade, beside the coffee and big gulps, a decidedly unamerican practice was going on in the stores that we targeted today. >> authorities say the owners

would actually threaten the workers with deportation if they squealed, but some still came forward, cooperated. those whistle blowers will get to stay in the country. it's unclear what will happen to all the rest of the workers. and the owner, four of them had dual citizen zship between pakistan and united states. 7-eleven says they will now aggressively audit every single employee of every 7-eleven across the country to see who might be hiding in the shadows. >> unbelievable. the woman who blew the whistle on what's being called a state department coverup of several ugly scandals that emerged under hillary clinton now says the feds are trying to bully her into silence. up next, we'll show you what they're doing and what it means for the probe into wrongdoing, alleged wrongdoing, on second clinton's watch. plus, the cbs news reporter who relentlessly challenged the

administration on fa"fast and furious" now detail what is she says has been confirmed as the hacking of her personal and work computers. who was behind this? we'll be joined by a former justice department attorney to try to answer those questions. and it's been exactly 20 years since the infamous low speed chase involving former football star o.j. simpson who was then arrested and charged with double murder. today a judge could hand down a critical ruling for his latest legal troubles. we'll show you what's on the line for o.j. simpson as he fights to get out of prison.

last week we told you about claims from a former state department employee that fueled investigations into several sex scandals including one involving a u.s. ambassador. now that whistle blower is

claiming she's being harassed by her former employer. she says federal law enforces agents have come to her house, has rased her children and are trying to bully her into silence. an attorney who has represented several agency whistle blowers joins me now. this comes amid reports that the state department accused here of failing to investigate or actively covering up several emerging scandals under hillary clinton is now rather than pursuing those scandals to their logical conclusion targeting the whistle blower, threatening legal action against her, thinking about bringing charges against her, and now she says sending federal agents to her home to harass her children. your reaction. >> well, first of all, this is something that while the state department is embroiled in these scandals under clinton's and kerry's watch, this is something

that transcends parties and administrations. whenever there is a whistle blower, the people in power will try to either silence them or build their case to defend against them as much as they can through whatever tricks they can use. sometimes they will go through the proper procedures, most of the time they will bluff as i think they did here. and assume that she doesn't know her rights and that she doesn't it know -- >> that's the crazy thing because she's not just any -- she's not your average state department employee. she was with the inspector general's office. that's the group that does the investigations when wrongdoing is alleged. she says she investigated the wrongdoing, she found coverups, she put that in the report, and then the report got scrubbed and that's when she went to members of congress and to the news agencies and said i'm telling you there was a coverup and then they tried to cover up the coverup and i'm blowing the whistle on it. in response, she says two

officers are showing up harassing her children, camped out for four or five hours. one of her children was a minor being questioned by these officers. and her lawyer is saying this is outrageous. >> and i agree. i think it's outrageous if only for the reason that they thought they could get away with it. regardless of whether or not you think that she was justified in doing what she did, she knows their playbook. she knows all the tricks they have up their sleeves that they thought they could intimidate her and to avoid the due process and all the procedures they have to go through. >> let's just tell the viewers what we're talking about. for example, they tried to get her to sign a document admitting that she stole state department materials like the memos that she leaked to lawmakers and to news agencies to prove her

point. she had her final -- the final inspector general report and she had a draft report. and the draft report had a lot more about how the state had tried to cover up the scandals and the lengths they had gone and higher up this in state who had been involved. final version didn't have any of that. and so she produced them, the two versions, to news agencies and lawmakers and then you got folks from the inspector general's office showing up saying please sign this document saying you stole all that. >> they're perfectly within their rights to ask. this is something that agencies do all the time. i personally had a very unusual conversation with an fbi investigator who wanted to go through my rords of my clients. and they said if you don't cooperate, we'll get it anyway. and my response was, really? i don't believe that's going to happen. so come back when you have a warrant. >> right. go for it. the thing is you're an attorney. she's with the general's office. so you know your rights.

and she knew her rights and she knew what they were trying to do. so many others don't know. and this type of overreach or bullying by the federal government when you've got a whi whisle blower, because there are federal laws that protect whistle blowers, it can be very intimidated. we saw similar allegations being made from those who wanted to talk about what really happened in benghazi. their lawyers said they were threatened, as well. whistle blower laws are there for a reason. >> they're a very good idea. unfortunately when you get into the realm of foreign relations and national security, they break down. in the foreign service, you're not protected as well as you are elsewhere. in the intelligence community, you have no protection. they can retaliate against you whenever they please if they think that you've told someone information that they consider to be protected even if it's not classified. >> and you can see -- i can see

how that has a different, you know -- that's a different category if you're putting lives at risk. but this woman is reporting on sex scandals that people didn't want coming out presumably because it would be embarrassing and it was her job to unearth them and she did. and now they're trying to shut her up. in any event, we'll continue to follow the case and find out what happens. very interesting. instead of filing criminal charges or charges holding responsible those involved in the alleged scandal, they only go after the woman from the ig's office who tried to shed light on it. thanks for being here. >> thank you for having me. coming up, a florida court will have the last of three hearings on whether the jury in the trayvon martin/george zimmerman murder case will get to hear the sound -- well, no. will get to hear the expert testimony about the 911 call and specifically the screams heard in the background. this is such a fierce fight in

this case. the judge explains the fight. plus what appears to be a small victory for zimmerman's defense team. and sesame street once gone going where no children's show has gone before. this time a show about a children who have parents in prison. that's next. plus a wendy's customer caught on tape going off on employees at a drive-through window. the fast food fury next. >> i want my money back and i want my money back now and i want it fast. it's not anything that i asked for.

fast food fury and now the

angry tirade from an angry customer at wendy's is going viral. he has a word or two with employees after the plain hamburger he ordered is delivered with cheese on it. listen. >> i need my money back and i want it fast. the double hamburger. is there cheese in hamburger? there is no cheese in hamburger. when you have a cheese burger, you have a cheese burgser. if you have hamburger, you have hamburger. i want my money back and i want it now and i want it fast. there is not even bacon on this and not onion or anything that i asked for. this is such incompetence, i cannot believe it happens every time i come here. i'm blolosing my [ bleep ]. this has happened the past three times i've come. please be competent tent once in your life. once. take an order and fill it. >> as you can clearly see, a wendy's cheese burger clearly does have cheese, whereas a

hamburger does not. we've gone to the trouble preparing this graphic for you which was exactly the point that man was trying to raise. the incident ended with the customer getting his money back and getting always notoriety since more than 50,000 people have looked that the on youtube. and you can understand why he would be so angry about a burger. umm. well, maybe not. remember the nut case in the dunkin donuts thing last week? well, the next story that we have for you brought to you by the letter i for in-ccarceratii. sesame street has been helping educate children for decades on important things like the abcs and 123s. but now a new municipppet is he kids with parents in prison. >> he's the first to have a parent in prison. you saw him there earlier, he has blue hair, a green nose, and

alex wears a hoodie. and he always complains about how much he misses his father, explaining why his dad is not around to help him build a toy car. listen. >> my dad's in jail. >> why? >> i don't like to talk about it. most people don't understand. >> actually, i do understand what you're going through. when i was about your age, my dad was incarcerated, too. >> he was? >> so the theme of the whole thing is that it's easier to hear this stuff from a muppet than from an adult. it's aimed at kids 3 to 8 and certainly sesame street as you said has dealt with difficult topics before. anything from divorce to military deploy chlt. now it turns out that more kids have parents in prison than deployed in the military. reason magazine wrote about the new character saying congratulations, america, on making it almost normal to have a parent in prison or jail.

others say maybe this will spark a dialogue as to why the u.s. has such a high parent prison population. sesame street is of course a pbs program which gets some of its funding from the government. this plan has also gotten a great deal of private funding. it is already available on the web. and it's being distributed to community centers and schools around the country. >> wow. trying to help the little kids who are dealing with it, not trying to encourage more parents to go to prison. but you have to feel bad for the kids who find themselves in that situation. trace, thanks. why are the feds suing two major u.s. companies for conducting criminal background checks of employees? we'll tell you. they apparently think that's racist. bernie gold birg berg is here f eye opening star. plus the nfl star is out of jail, but explaining his

behavior. he's giving an interview. we'll play part of it for you. and are americans incapable of understanding the syrian complex? the president seemed to suggest that. how exactly america is getting involved in that country's muddy civil war. already the accusations coming up that he is a, quote, reluctant leader. the debate next. >> to send small arms to the syrian insurgents was announced by a junior white house aide. we've heard nothing since. silence may be a good way to duck, but it is not a way to lead. ♪

♪ [ male announcer ] it started long ago. the joy of giving something everything you've got. it takes passion. and it's not letting up anytime soon. if you're eligible for medicare, you might know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, they help pay some of the difference. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients.

plus, there are no networks, and you never need a referral to see a specialist. so don't wait. call now to request a free decision guide to help you understand medicare. and which aarp medicare supplement plan might work best for you. there's a range to choose from, depending on your needs and your budget. and they all travel with you -- anywhere in the country. best of all, you'll be joining the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. ♪ remember, all medicare supplement insurance plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you'll be able to choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. and you never need referrals. so call now to request a free decision guide and learn more. after all, when you're going the distance, it's nice to have the experience and commitment

to go along with you. keep dreaming. keep doing. go long. if you haven't been in the situation room poring through intelligence and meeting directly with our military folks, unless you've been involved in those conversations, then it's kind of hard for you to understand the complexity of the situation and how we have to not rush into one more war in the middle east. >> that was president obama speaking to charlie rose before he left for the g-8 summit. suggesting that if people could only be in the situation room hearing what he hears, speaking to those he speaks with, they would better understand his decisions on syria. chief white house correspondent ed henry is live at the white

house with more on that. >> the bottom line is what the president's really trying to say there is that he's approaching it differently than former president bush and that was the context of iraq and afghanistan, his charge the previous administration rushed to war and that he's looking at a complex situation that most americans are not looking at and that is why he is taking this sort of go slow approach. that might not sit well with some people. the other issue for the president is he's obviously at the g-8 summit, he had a bilateral meeting with president hollande from france. the president believes the key to the situation in syria is getting president assad to the negotiating table in geneva for a political settlement to all this. of course critics on the republican side have suggested you'll never get the syrians to the negotiating table. they're not going to reach some sort of political settlement. and what really needs to be done is heavy arms going to the syrian rebels to try and turn the tide. but interesting that when charlie rose pressed the

president about this new policy in syria, he insisted it's not a new policy at all. take a listen. >> i'm not sure you can characterize it as a new policy. this is consistent with the policy that i've had throughout. remember how this evolved. the president of syria, assad, was presented with peaceful protesters in the wake of the arab spring. he responded with violence and suppression. and that has continued to escalate. >> now, what's interesting of course is that late last week, the white house is sort of selling this as a new policy that showed that the u.s. was stepping up its aid to the syrian ren bells. now the president systems suggesting no this is not a new policy, putting more pressure on him to explain exactly what the policy is. >> all right. he had ed henry, thank you. that's the point, putting more pressure on him, the commander

in chief, to explain exactly what the policy is and exactly what we're about to do and the reasons for doing it now. the timing, the timing of it is what has become so controversial. this was last night on a special report. >> when the issues are difficult and options unappetizing, he tends simply to go away. but when you're president, you simply can't vote present. the decision was announced by a junior white house aide and we've heard nothing since. silence may be a good way to duck, but it is not a way to lead. >> sit is that sim type of criticism that we heard from brit hume that had george wills calling him a reluctant president. that's where i want to start. whether you think we should go

into syria now or not, where is our commander in chief to come out and explain it? it's an islamist civil war that the united states is about to get into. it wasn't always this way, but it is now.so going in now is controversial. where is our president, chris, to explain and justify to the american people who don't get to go into the situation room why he's decided to do it? >> that was one of the more absurd responses. i played the back and forth with charlie rose and president obama this morning on my radio show at great length. and this was an opportunity for the president to explain his policy. charlie rose asked some pretty reasonable if softball questions of the president. and he chose to give answers like, well, if you were in the situation room like i am, you know, you wouldn't be asking questions like that. he punted, he ob few skated.

and i heard from another news network this morning that the white house was excited to announce that they had explained to the russians and to putin that their plan was not to get rid of the assad regime, but just assad himself and leave the regime in place apparently which is as in-coherent as anything i've heard. and to say this is not a change in policy to go from not arming the rebels to arming the rebels is laughable on the face of it. the whole exercise is completely in-cohere in-coherent. he had the opportunity to explain the policy and he chose not to.coherent. he had the opportunity to explain the policy and he chose not to. >> if we decided to do this 9, 12 months ago, it wouldn't i think have been as controversial because the facts of rebel forces over there were not as infiltrated according to the reports by al qaeda and these

others as they are today. we were seeing kids being tortured and murdered and now the death toll up to 93 plus thousand. but the fact that we have waited has led to in part the changing of these opposition forces. and now a lot of american, 70% are a lot more reluctant about, wow, do we really want to be in the middle of wiwil this. so why is the commander in chief to explain why he thinks we should do it now. >> the president was clear, his line in the sand were chemical weapons. wmds. and because of history and not picking on any former president in particular, this president especially after being so critical of his predecessor with regard to iraq and wmds wanted to make sure absolutely without question that they had them, they were being used, and where these arressenals were specifically. i think one of the reasons the

president isn't telling us what he's going to do is because what i have heard from military people in washington, et cetera, is this is far more complicated than we understand. here are some examples. russia has a fleet on syria's mediterranean coast. we have allies in turkey and jordan. if you blow up a chemical arsenal, what happens to the chemicalses that go through the air to innocent men, women and children in sear kra. if we arm the rebels with military weapons, do we establish no-fly zone. syria has a huge capability to defend itself in the air. and additionally -- >> why can't we have that discussion? what we've had so far has ben rose with all due respect to ben rose, he's not the commander whiin chief. he also wasn't in on all the situation room meetings talking directly with the military leaders. and wouldn't we agree on the

left and the right that before we go into an islamist civil war which is what they say it is now, at least present day, we need to understand -- we'd like to hear from the commander in chief what the considerations were. >> well, this red line talk is just more haplessness and more effectlessness. yes, we'd like to hear from the commander in chief. you can declare a red line and the red line is crossed and then you pretend to take some sort of action. and we don't know what it is. and as he said, we can't itemize what we're going to give to them. the president was offered an opportunity by charlie rose last night to talk about what types of weapons would be going in. we're not going to arm them presumably with nonlethal weapons. i assume we're not sending nurse guns. but the situation is complicated. it always has been. there are chemical weapons there. isn't that interesting.

yes, it's is sectarian war and there are allies and other forces behind the curtain like iran and hezbollah. and putin is in there up to his ears. >> we know all that. my point is we need the commander in chief to explain to us how he weighed those considerations. and i realize that his credibility was on the line because he did say red line chemical weapons, but the truth is little children have been getting shot in the face in syria in front of their parents months ago. and that was not a red line for us. so we drew it where we drew it, but there was a lot of criticism about why was the torture of children not the red line, why was this it chemical weapons. and months went on and al qaeda kept joining the forces and now we don't know who the rebels are. we have reports of cannibalism, of dead bodies and so on, putin saying i'm not so hip on your

idea to top supporting the assad regime because i don't like your side either. and the question is where is our leader. i'll give you the last word. >> i have to tell you that i don't think that the president is absent. in the art of war, the element of surprise is the first piece in the path to victory. >> oh, please. >> i think what they're looking at -- i agree as a mom anytime i see kids being hurt is a problem. but think about it, you're commander in chief. are you going to help arm al qaeda to fight hezbollah which is what comes down to? and that's what the headline will read. and when we look at history, isn't that what we did with o s osama bin laden in afghanistan. will we be creating a worse regime to take over in syria. >> that's why you have 70% of americans who today are against this. thank you both so much. coming up, a florida court is considering whether a 911 call is address mifsmissible in.

the expert testimony about it. it could be a game changer. and a cbs news reporter challenging the obama administration on various scandals says she was hacked. hi. i'm henry winkler.

and i'm here to tell homeowners that are 62 and older about a great way to live a better retirement. it's called a reverse mortgage. [ male announcer ] call right now to receive your free dvd and booklet with no obligation. it answers questions like how a reverse mortgage works, how much you qualify for,

the ways to receive your money, and more. plus, when you call now, you'll get this magnifier with l.e.d. light absolutely free. when you call the experts at one reverse mortgage today, you'll learn the benefits of a government-insured reverse mortgage. it will eliminate your monthly mortgage payments and give you tax-free cash from the equity in your home. and here's the best part -- you still own your home. take control of your retirement today. ♪ ♪

flew developments in the george zimmerman murder trial. this about two hours we will see the last part of a hear to go decide if the jury will get to hear experts talk about the

sound of someone screaming in the background, the famous 911 call. and who that person may be. here is the portion of the call. >> 911, do you need police, fire or medical? >> maybe both. i'm not sure. there is just someone screaming outside. i can't see him. i don't know what's going on. >> joining me now, host of judge alex. judge, good to see you. this has become the hottest issue in the case so far. both sides arguing that the defense wants expert testimony on the tape out, the prosecution wants it in. what do you think is likely to happen, what are they really arguing over? >> well, what they're arguing over is scientific testimony. these experts have analyzed the recording, the voice on the 911 call, to try to identify who is yelling for help. that's a critical, critical component of the case. because if trayvon is yelling for help, it's impossible for george zimmerman to prevail on a

claim of self-defense when the person that you are supposedly defending yourself from is begging for their life. if george zimmerman is yelling for help, buttresses his claim of self-defense. so it's critical. the problem is that the fb chlt analyzed the call and their experts said we enhanced it and there is still no way to tell because there is really on two or three seconds of usable tape there. and we can't identify it and actually said they would be disturbed if any expert pretended to be able to identify who the people on the call were. who the person screaming was. but as you know, i don't have to tell that you you can get an expert who will say anything. so of course the defense has an expert saying this is george zimmerman's voice and the prosecution has an expert or two who say this is trayvon's voice. abc had an independent expert analyze it and they said they thought it sounded like george zimmerman's voice, but no expert has been able to say we're confident in our results. and the techniques they have used are way out there.

i frankly don't think that the judge will let it in. >> so if the judge bans the expert testimony, the tape still comes in and then what, the jury is free -- bans the expert testimony and the tape comes in, the jury draws the conclusion? >> unless it's probative and nobody can identify the screaming voice and tries to keep it out. i don't see the judge keeping it out. it is a vital piece of evidence. what will happen is the parents will say, i know my son's voice, that's trayvon's voice and george zimmerman's parents say that's george's voice and the jury isn't helped by that. >> the judge decided to not let the prosecutors say zimmerman profiled trayvon martin in their opening statement. significant victory? >> maybe. you know, i didn't like to see interest the dinlt because it's not typically the language they would put in an indictment. make no mistake about it, race is not an underlying issue in this case.

race is a prominent part because they charged second degree murder that has to show ill will or evil intent. he didn't even know trayvon so that has to be a race motivated theory. by... my doctor. my gynecologist. my pharmacist. citracal. citracal. [ female announcer ] you trust your doctor. doctors trust citracal.

we could learn today who o.j. simpson will be granted a new trial on robbery charges. he's challenge his conviction claiming he had inadequate legal counsel at his las vegas trial. today marks 19 days to the day simpson's mugshot was released and he was booked on other charges, double murder charges, in connection with his ex-wife's murder and that of her friend. 21 days since the now infamous low moving white bronco kept the nation riveted.

trace gallagher in l.a. >> the way it works when this decision comes down, the judge will post it on the court website and e-mail it out. as soon as it pops up on our blackberries we'll let you know. he had a high burden because he was trying to prove his defense attorney was ineffective. here's the two big fs, whether o.j. convinced the judge galanter had a conflict of interest because he knew about the raid and said o.j. had a right to get his stuff back. if galanter was paid $500,000, why did he not hire experts to analyze the audio recording inside the hotel, remember where online said nobody can leave here. galanter didn't challenge the audio because he thought it would help o.j.'s case but the jury convicted him mostly because of that audio saying the other witnesses were not credible. while we're on the subject of o.j., we should bring up what you talked about megyn, it has

now been 19 years yesterday was the slow speed chase up the 405, the white bronco. 20 police cars. and his friend, cowlings was driving and o.j. had a gun to the head, the most sensational murder case america has ever seen, 19 years ago yesterday. >> who can forget it. thanks. coming up, the cbs news reporter who repeatedly challenged the justice department on benghazi and fast and furious and talking about how her computer files were hacked. and coming forward to explain his actions after a camera snapped a picture of his hands around her throat in kelly's court. [ male announcer ] this is kevin.

to prove to you that aleve is the better choice for him, he's agreed to give it up. that's today? [ male announcer ] we'll be with him all day as he goes back to taking tylenol. i was okay, but after lunch my knee started to hurt again. and now i've got to take more pills. ♪ yup. another pill stop.

can i get my aleve back yet? ♪ for my pain, i want my aleve. ♪ [ male announcer ] look for the easy-open red arthritis cap. after age 40, we can start losing muscle... 8% every 10 years. wow! whoa! but you can help fight muscle loss with exercise and ensure muscle health. i've got revigor. what's revigor? it's the amino acid metabolite hmb. along with protein, ensure helps rebuild muscle and strength naturally lost over time. [ female announcer ] ensure muscle health has revigor and protein to help protect, preserve, and promote muscle health. keeps you from getting soft. [ major nutrition ] ensure. nutrition in charge!

fox news alert. a potential game changer in the nsa spying scandal. new testimony from the director of the national security agency on the government's controversial surveillance program programs revealing for the first time the actual number of terror plots that the government claims this top secret spy program prevented. brand new hour here of "america live." welcome. i'm megyn kelly. nsa director keith alexander testifying before a house committee in a rare public hearing today, fiercely defending the leaked phone and internet surveillance programs say thing that they have helped prevent some 50 plus terrorist

plots since 9/11. including planned bombings of the new york city subway system and new york stock exchange. the nsa director was also grilled on growing concerns in the country over government spying of hundreds of million os of americans. >> general alexander, is the nsa on private company's servers as defined under these two programs? >> we are not. >> is the nsa have the ability to listen to americans' phone calls or read their e-mails under these two programs? >> no, we do not have that authority. >> does the technology exist of the nsa to flip a switch, by some analysts, to listen to americans' phone calls or read their e-mails? >> no. >> joining us now, our chief intelligence correspondent, catherine herridge. catherine. >> thank you. a short time ago the director of the national security agency,

general keith alexander testifying there are hundreds of assistant administrators that hold the same position and clearances as edward snowden the nsa leaker and most are with outside contractors. in the majority are contractors. as you may know, you may recall, about 12, 13 years ago, as we tried to downsize our government workforce, we pushed more of our information technology work force or system administrators to the contract arena. >> witnesses testifying the two controversial nsa programs including phone records of millions of americans and foreign internet communications helped disrupt 50 plots including the new york city subway bomb, attack on the new york city stock exchange and overseas plot involving american citizen, david headley. what witnesses did not volunteer to lawmakers headley did the surveillance for the terrorist attack in mumbai, india in 2008

and made a half-dozen surveillance trips overseas before finally the nsa programs caught up on him on a much lesser plot to assassinate a cartoonist. this morning, witnesses testified at length about criteria that must be used in order to questionery the telephone record database. a small pool of managers and analysts at the nsa, less than 25 people decide whether there is a concrete reason to query a phone number. in this case, there is no ov oversight with court approval. the head of the nsa was pushed to explain the breakdown of the 50 plots and link to foreign communications, not american phone records. >> how essential, not just contributing to, how essential are those authorities to stopping which terrorist attacks? >> a little over 10. we're at a domestic nexus. business records could only apply to those, so the ones in

other countries, it couldn't apply to because the data is not there and doesn't come into the u.s. >> that was quite a lengthy exchange with congressman hines. at the end of the day what was not answered whether the phone records database provided that critical tip or initiating lead that led to the uncover of the plot. senator critics most widely udall and another said the phone database just provided supplemental or a secondary level of confirmation on those tip tips. >> it was the most full throated defense we heard of the program since it was revealed. thanks so much. >> you're welcome. president obama also defended the nsa spy programs in an interview last night saying all the recent quote ruckus was in part because so much of what goes on is classified. we've seen a number of polls, journalists and political polls

suggest the administration has a growing credibility crisis much bigger than the nsa. the president's comments and that debate just ahead. disturbing story about a top cbs news reporter. cbs confirming the home and work computers of sheryl atkinson have been hacked and miss atkinson appears to know who did it. >> this is notphsshing, or mall wear or old boyfriend trying to looking through my files. >> this is big. in order to go after somebody you have to have a suspicion. i assume you have a suspicion. you don't have to tell me, i don't want to get your lawyers mad but i assume you have a suspicion? >> i think i know but i'm not prepared to go into that. we're continuing our investigations. they're multifaceted looks at what to do next. >> now, andrew mccarthy, former

special prosecutor and with t terrorism. she's been in touch with experts and law enforcement and says she incomes she knows, that means they probably do know that. what are they doing? >> she's a credible person. if just anybody said, i think i know, you would say, how does she know? she has a track record as a reputable reporter. what you're looking at in any investigation this sophisticated is pretty simple. capability and motive. we have motive here considerably, i think, when you consider the fact that she was looking into things that the administration would prefer not to have -- >> i want to pick up on that. let's talk about motive. she told bill she knew it was not an ex boyfriend, knew it wasn't a personal grudge. she talked about how her personal home computer at home would corner on by itself and cbs news computer also compromised.

that's been confirmed. they found technology deep inside the computers and used sophisticated method, the hackers did and tried to remove the indications of the unauthorized activity. here's what she said she was working on, business related. >> what big stories were you working on? >> at the time, fast and furious, green energy debacle, spending stories and later on, any benghazi stories. >> they were all not complementary to the administration. you weren't working on why is barack obama so brilliant and the best thing in the world? >> which ever administration is in office, that's what i do. >> i'm not saying you're partisan, i'm saying the stuff you were going after if the information came forth might hurt the obama administration, is that accurate? >> true. >> that speaks to possible motive. >> look, a lot of times this would be tinfoil hat time, a person just made these kinds of allegations about the government. here, it's going to have some traction because we have a

record of this particular administration not only pursuing journalists conducting investigations that are at times uncomfortable for the administration but an overall use of their law enforcement and bureaucratic power to harass people that are political dissenters. it's a motive that has more credibility to follow up on. >> it comes at the same time we learned separate and apart from the doj spying on reporters' scandal the nsa has the capability through its prison program to spy on our e-mails. they're supposed to have an indication of foreignness. we know they have the capability to look at remails remotely, from their offices to tap into the computer and take a look. it has people wondering. >> a lot of people have capabilities. this was done in a particularly sophisticated way, where they even went in, as you pointed out and tried to purge evidence of the fact they had been there in the first place. the first thing i'd be looking

at is who has the capability of doing this? there are all kinds of people who can do hacking but hacking on this kind of a level that's going to be a small circle of suspects. you have this government obviously has the capability to do it. the chinese government, wave learned,s has the capability. >> what do the chinese care about fast and furious and benghazi? >> assuming you're on the right track about motive, that's right. >> how do we find out. in the land of hypotheticals, what if the doj thought sharyh was like james rosen, another c c co-conspirator who must be stopped? a warrant without any finding out. how would we find out? >> ultimately like in the james rosen case, even though it was delayed they ultimately had to tell rosen he was the subject of these procedures.

if they're acting awfully and she had anything to do with it eventually she will know. if they're not acting awfully the only way to find out is by condu conducting an investigation. in this cyber-world, people leave prints like the world we're familiar with. >> they do? >> sure. what you need is people competent to do this kind of forensic investigation on people who accessed your computer and your cyber-history. >> it's potentially traceable who actually got the information. >> right. >> and what they looked at. she probably knows whether they were interested in fast and furious or benghazi if it's one of those two, they'll be able to tell her what the person accessed, right? >> that goes to the motive. people could have pureient interest and all kinds of interest and go into once they got access to your computer just because they were curious. these folks have a motive to do it and capability. a small circle. >> she told bill none of her bank accounts were compromised

although they could have been. this was not attempt to fleece her accounts or dig up information on her. bill said last night, if this was the federal government, very hi thet call at this point, that's a huge game changer if this was done to her. >> i think it's correct. i think it's a big problem for her. more broadly, it should be of great concern to journalist, not just journalist, americans. if the government is doing this sort of thing lawlessly, that's a big problem. it's even a bigger problem than misusing the law. >> i'd like to hear more about what the feds are doing to help her track down the perpetrator and to make sure that every effort is being exhausted. that can't go on. this can't go on. at her home overnight with her kids present, people accessing, basically sneaking into her home see. if they did it. >> somebody did it. this can't go on period.

the feds need to take an interest in this no matter where the truth take us. >> let's hope so. >> thanks for being here. a near 40 year mystery is nearing an end as new tips lead to the serve for jimmy hoffa. why are feds saying it is racist for employers to reject people with criminal backgrounds? an nfl star who got national attention for slapping his lawyer's bottom. it ever happen to you when you were practicing law? >> i can't say that i ever have been. >> this guy did it and was very pleased with his performance. he got 30 days in jail and we will hear his story from top to bottom. >> i expect anybody who comes into this courtroom will be respectful and conduct themselves with a sense of decency and decorum at all times.

test test test test test test test test test

new questions today about the federal government's decision to sue two major american employers for failing to hire or employ convicted criminals. the equal employment opportunity commission has filed two lawsuits against dollar general stores and bmw. what's the theory here? >> i will give you the no frills just the facts version. the eeoc, a federal agency, equal opportunity employment commission sued those two companies that you mentioned for racial discrimination. this is important. there are no memos, there are no voice mails, no e-mails indicating that somebody said, let's not hire black people here. the eeoc isn't even alleging that. but the companies had criminal background checks and federal statistics show that blacks are convicted far far more often than whites of serious crimes,

therefore fewer blacks got the jobs, or to look at it another way, more blacks rejected from getting the jobs and the eeoc or, more precisely, the liberal bureaucrats at the eeoc contend that in and of itself is racial discriminatio discrimination. >> they say, and i quote, it is an issue of fairness. they say people should pay for their crimes but should they pay for them for the rest of their lives. they think bmw and these other employers are making them do that. >> that's a fair statement, at least from their point of view and an arguable statement. their position is that t the -- each case should be handled individually, that the employer should go to the prospective job seeker and he or she should have the opportunity to say, you should hire me despite my conviction on murder charges years ago or armed

robbery or whatever it is. that's not a crazy point of view. the companies are put in a tough spot, because if they hire somebody with a violent background because they're required to, what if that person goes off on a customer or fellow worker? should they be obliged to hire somebody who's had a conviction regarding theft, for instance, theft of money? should that person automatically be able to get a job as a cashier at dollar general? that's the tough spot. >> the lawyers will come after the companies if they hire a former reformed criminal, and then that person commits another criminal act, the victim of that second act will turn to dollar general or bmw and say, you should have known. >> exactly. exactly. here's what it's all about. to most regular folks listening to us this has to sound crazy

because there's no racial discrimination in any traditional sense. it's just because the outcomes are different. what this is called actually a name for it, it's called disspar rat impact, so you don't have to prove discrimination that one boss said to another boss, hey, whatever you do, don't hire those black people, you don't have to prove that. >> a numbers game. >> you don't have to prove it. it doesn't have to exist. >> it's numbers fame. 34% of those last year were block even though they only make up 13% of the u.s. population. if you have a blanket policy if you have a criminal background you can't get hired it will affect black people disproportionate to whites. >> i admit this is a bit of a stretch. if you're going to take that disparate argument to an illogical conclusion, i'd have a case against the nba because

only 13% of the american population is black. geez, about 75% of -- or short people -- >> do you have any basketball talents whatsoever? >> i do. i do. i was the captain of my int intramural team that went to the finals at rutgers university. >> i did in fourth grade but nobody ever called -- >> the point is that argument wouldn't hold up. they say, you have to have nba ability. but when they have tests for lieutenant in the fire department and minorities don't make the cut, there have been lawsuits saying, disparate impact has affected minorities and should get the promotion even though they didn't pass the test. if i don't have ability to play in the nba and they didn't pass the test maybe they don't have the ability to be a lieutenant in the fire department. disparate impact is a very

slippery slope and from my point of view, it doesn't make a lot of sense. let's make clear, these two companies are discriminating, they are, against convicted felon, whether they're white or black. >> it looks like it may not be just felons. one complaint was one woman of 14 years was let go after a misdemeanor conviction surfaced over 20 years old. the "washington post" outlines that. >> thanks for pointing that out. most crimes listed in the case are murder, assault and battery, domestic violence. >> two-thirds of companies do conduct these background checks and 60% report violent crimes could disqualify a candidate. seven states including maryland have adopted these laws that prevent you from including questions about criminal past aon job ads. a camera catches this man

with his hands around his wife's throat. the feds are making a push to find an unsolved bombing in the heart of new york. so... [ gasps ]

these are sandra's "homemade" yummy, scrumptious bars. hmm? i just wanted you to eat more fiber. chewy, oatie, gooeyness... and fraudulence. i'm in deep, babe. you certainly are. [ male announcer ] fiber one. i don't always have time to eat like i should. that's why i like glucerna shakes. they have slowly digestible carbs to help minimize blood sugar spikes. [ male announcer ] glucerna. helping people with diabetes find balance. [ male announcer ] introducing red lobster's seaside mix & match.

combine any 2 from a wide variety of 7 exciting choices oone plate. all for just $12.99! but only for a limitime. i'm art harringt, and i sea food difrently.

it's now the slap heard around the world. former nfl star chad johnson is today speaking out about how he came to pat his lawyer's bottom. during a court hearing two weeks ago, a move that almost cost him a month in jail. trace gallagher has the story. trace. >> the very first question chad johnson was asked, why in the world did you pat your lawyer on the fannie? he said, well, it's the way i interact with people. in fact, i actually patted him

on the fanny three times but the judge only saw me one time and when she gave him 30 days. you know the public was clearly divided on this. kelly's court divided and the people divided how the judge reacted. but he said not only did the judge do the right thing but grateful she did it. >> a lot of people have tried to get me to slow down in life, coach, agent, lawyer and there was one person that was able to do it. that was my judge. little does she know it, i love her to death, but basically what she's been is a blessing in disguis disguise. >> nothing like doing that to get you to love your judge. he got out early. johnson said he will try to play football again and been controversial on the football field. not legal trouble. the changed his name to

ochocinco and changed it back to chad johnson. played 11 years in the nfl and now trying to hook back on with another team. i have to let you know the whole butt slap really is tradition in football. o'reilly played football. you could do it in the hall. if o'reilly balks by in the hall, he played football. >> celebrating in the end zone in court is not allowed. different, know what i'm saying? nobody should be touching anybody's bottom in court. that should be the blanket rule. you're looking at it and thinking about it, look away. let's not forget the man was in court for placing his hands where they shouldn't have been to begin with. a domestic violence case he was accused of head butting his wife, accused of cheating on her, and let's hope this ends. we got a lot of mail.

a lot of tweets on kelly's court whether she took it too far. she doesn't think so. chad johnson doesn't think so. don't do it. here around we have a great show, we don't start touching each other's rear ends. i know they do it on the football field. this is not a football field, the courtroom. as troubles pile on, the president talks about a new defense what he calls the ruckus over the nsa monitoring people's e-mails and spying on america's phone records and so on. up next, a look at the growing credibility crisis for this administration. the husband of a well-known celebrity tv chef has now come forward to speak to his actions after a candid camera snapped a picture of him with his hand around his wife's throat. we have that picture. we will show it to i and discuss what should happen to him in kelly's court.

if you're a u.s. person, then nsa's not listening to your phone calls and it's not targeting your e-mails unless it's getting an individualized court order. that's the existing rule. there are two programs that were revealed by mr. snowden. alleg allegedly, since there is a criminal investigation taking place, that caused all the ruckus. >> that was president obama speaking with cbs's charlie rose last night, seeming to dismiss

what he calls the ruckus over the nsa, you heard him characterize it there. new polls show a growing number of americans losing faith in the commander in chief, one influential political writer suggesting the president is now dealing with a credibility crisis that goes well beyond any nsa. former editorial, editor of the "national journal" ask whether the american people still trust this man. joining me now, a former advisor to president clinton and fox news contributor and monica crowley a fox news contributor and reporter from the "wall street journal." that's the question, do you trust this man. we've been talking about this because we have been talking about the trust, forget approval numbers. way down and in some polls, double digits down. the question is, the president, says, well, look, this guy came out with allegations. the president has yet to hold a

press conference with us to answer directly. i know what he did today. that was good to have all those folks on capitol hill testifying. do we need to hear from him on it? >> we absolutely do. there are huge unanswered questions about the nsa scandal, how much information they're gathering, also about the irs, ap, james rosen and benghazi. we need to get more answers. what the administration is doing is deflecting, casting aspersions on opponents and suggesting in a lot of ways, this is old news when time passes so shouldn't we go on to other things given the questions have been answered. >> when i see what they did on capitol hill today with the nsa, this is good, he put out the people that actually knew the answers and were asked questions and gave full answers. there was a whole panel, fbi, nsa, you name it. where is that sort of transparency on all these other things we've been talking about, benghazi for one, irs for another, dorj for another?

is the failure to have those questions answered leading to a credibility problem. >> it's striking because this is a president whose campaigns were known for rapid response and these questions have been lingering for weeks on end without any real answers coming from the president or his team. on the nsa situation, the reason why it has blown up in this administration's face because it's coming to us in a bigger context of the severe abuse us of power doug points out. the irs, department of justice, benghazi. we don't have any kind of real answer from him and his team on those issues as well. the nsa issue may be able to stand on its own but coming in a broader context of abuse of power without any real answers from him. remember back in the day there used to be presidential primetime news conferences. why not have it? the reason he hasn't been

proactive is because he doesn't have a lot to say. either he and his team are guilty of these allegations or don't have the details. either deep corruption or profound incompetence. >> there's the drip drip drip, they called different people to the hill and said, answer these questions and had whistle-blowers answer the question. the president himself, why doesn't he speak to what his press secretary said, we only changed one word we now know is false? what is he going to do about the fact the nsa chief appeared to lay under oath they were spying on americans. people starting to tar the president with this. >> his credibility is eroding and his authority is eroding. >> that hurts america. >> hurts america. he's only four or five months into his second term. we have a long way to go. we do need a functioning president. to a point, the thing different about the nsa and benghazi and

irs and press. those are mistakes protecting us from terror. why isn't the president showing leadership and standing up in front of the american people and personally trying to convince them of that. they don't need general alexander in front of a committee most people aren't watching to do it, that's good. they need the president to reassure them bad things are not happening. >> what's the answer? he doesn't want to alienate those on the left and give a full throated defense? >> i think it's because he's ambivalent like he gave his speech on the war or terror. >> i think it's right. when he was senator obama running against president bush, the idea of the vast ov overreaching of the nsa, idea of collecting records before there are credible allegations runs counter to barack obama's philosophy as a u.s. senator.

so for him to do what dan is saying, i think both monica and dan are right, he's go the to have a full throated defense, understanding of the program and willingness, megyn, do what you said, answer tough questions. so far no go. >> he sits down with charlie rose, no insult 20 charlie rose, where is the press conference that gets to ask questions. where is the press conference on syria? we're about to jump into an islamist civil war. why can't we ask our commander in chief about it? >> why is he not available to the american people whether press statement or from the oval office. they're exactly right. he has two issues that make it more difficult for him. number one is the hypocrisy doug spoke. he pounded bush for years on this kind of data mining and he kept the data mining and expanded it. he's been telling us over a

year, going on two years, the war on terror is winding down, we have al qaeda on the run. then why do you need such a massive surveillance method. >> now they said they thwarted 50 attacks at the same time saying al qaeda is on the run and so on. generally, when you say something that either isn't true or turns out not to be true or reverse yourself on it, i think you only gain more credibility by saying, i was wrong. i know i said that as senator obama and then i became the commander in chief and got daily briefsings and let me persuade you now. >> i do. i believe the american people accord enormous def rens to the office of the presidency and allow him to come forward and explain these things. there's no good answer to your questions why does obama do this? it's hard to shay. he's damaging himself and office of the presidency.

this week he's sitting at the g8 meeting trying to help vladimir putin to help on syria. do you think putin is taking him serious at this point? obviously he's not worrying about it. the more his fatture falls, the more putin and others will cause real problems in this world. >> our president cripples his own agenda with every move perceived as feckless or not full throated and credible. >> trustworthy numbers are coming down and also job approval. job approval can always bounce back. once there is a steady emotion of trust in the commander in chief, it's almost impossible to rebuild that trust. >> especially for a president that likes big government, at a time we have seen all these government overreaches he has to come out with a diminished trust level and say trust me to respond. >> part of the reason he's not responding because he doesn't have good answers. the republican party has less

than complete credibility himself. the president believes if he ignores the scandal, attacks the republicans, calls them over-li partisans and the republicans appear to be without an agenda on his own -- >> can he maintain that when he has 70% of the country thinking these are real scandals that should be investigated? >> he'll be more on the attack because he doesn't have an answer. he'll go negative. coming up next, the husband of a celebrity tv chef now talking with police after photos surface showing him grabbing her in the throat in the middle of a restaurant. big day for women who boldly go where none have gone before. we'll explain just ahead. head & shoulders and old spice are now together in one bottle.

so we're always 100% flake free... ...while smelling 100% handsome. [ josh ] and with a double dose of confidence like that... mmmmmm. [ c.j.] ...good happens. [ sniffs ] ahhh! [ male announcer ] head & shoulders with old spice.

major update in the trial of army psychiatrist major nidal malik, accused of shooting dozens of troops there and killing 13 while screaming god is great in arabic. hasan requested his trial be delayed saying he needs more time to plan a defense and represents himself. today, he told a judge he no longer needs time to prepare and the judge is allowing him to go forward. she has banned him from arguing

he is protecting taliban leaders by committing these murders. a trial date will now be set. it is supposed to be set later today. kelly's court is back in session. on the docket today, celebrity chef nigella lawson and the shocking photo, showing her being choked by her billionaire husband, charles saatchi admitting he did choke his wife. the pages show otherwise. that's her face and there are his hands. you can see his hands on her neck. the story's stunning fans of nigella, who know her as a fun and sultry chef from her show on the food network. >> no more. i have given evening meals the express treatment. when it comes to cooking for the family, i am saved every time by

my roast dinner and salad and dynamic dressing. >> wait until you hear the punishment he's gotten for this behavior. joining me now, david wald, defense attorney. tell us what is the penalty in england for trying to choke your wife. >> apparently for this guy, it's nothing. he received a police caution, no penalty whatsoever and he just went on and went about his day. i can tell you one thing. if this guy does this in public, i can only imagine what goes on behind closed doors. it's much worse, trust me. >> it's a good point, david, he did this in public at a restaurant and on top of it, appears to have lied about it. a playful touch, that's all. you look at the photos and her face and you tell me whether that looks like a little playing moment with his hand right up on her throat and something he now

admits was criminal. >> yeah. megyn. i have to say what he did in england was essentially a preemptive strike. he went to law enforcement, admitted what he did and received that caution. while that caution appears to be a slap on the wrist, it does count as a prior offense should he pick up an actual charge so his punishment could be increased. there are other pictures, too. i have to say, while his hand is on her throat and totally inappropriate, it looks more like a slight squeeze than all out choke. they must have confirmed with her she wasn't injured before they agreed to a slap on the wrist, a caution and my only guess why he received such a minor punishment. >> let's be clear here. this is a photo of assault in progress. when it comes to evidence, it doesn't get better than a photo of assault in progress. you have independent witnesses and actual photo.

most domestic violence cases die on the vine when you have a victim that doesn't want to come forward -- >> the case here. >> yes. or independent evidence to corroborate an assault. this guy should have been arrested and charged with assault because apparently this is an ongoing problem. >> that's the thing. he characterized the incident as playful tiff. apparently that preceded the publication of these photos where he realized he was caught. they had him dead to rights. where is the penalty for that? why is that not built into the penalty that he misled. >> apparently she doesn't want to prosecute. they have children together. i think that's good. i can't tell you the majority of the cases where the wife wasn't seriously injured and doesn't want to prosecute and the

prosecutors say, no way, you have to go forward with this case. >> why do they need nigella to testify to anything? it happened in an open restaurant? restaurant? actually don't want to prosecute. about the rope why prosecutors go forward is because they recognize the need -- an opportunity for someone who is abusive to get help. notnessly sometimes jail, take them from their families or kids, but you can use it as an opportunity to get help. >> do they even mandate anger management classes or counseling? >> megyn, i have to believe as part of this caution that is one of the criteria. there's a line you don't cross. when you talk about domestic violence, tell clients put your hands behind your back and lock

your hands together when you're in an argument. once you cross the line it's very hard to jump back from. >> panel, thank you both. this guy says he voluntarily walked into the police station. having a heart attack. i was in shape, fit. i did not see it coming. i take bayer aspirin. [ male announcer ] so be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. see your doctor and get checked out. ♪ now you can give yourself a kick in the rear! v8 v-fusion plus energy. natural energy from green tea plus fruits and veggies. need a little kick? ooh! could've had a v8. in the juice aisle. but i feel skinnier, you know? not really. aaah! jessica! whoa! your friend's a rate sucker. her bad driving makes car insurance more expensive for the rest of us.

try snapshot from progressive. snap it in and get a discount based on your good driving. [pop!] stop paying for rate suckers! try snapshot free at progressive.com.

>> we go from main engine start. we have main engine start. and ignition. and liftoff. liftoff of sts7 and america's first woman astronaut, and the shuttle has cleared the tower. >> wow. she was america's first woman in space. sally ride. breaking barriers and flying into the history books. 30 years ago today. trace gallagher is live in los angeles with more. trace and. reporter: it's fascinating. not only was she the first woman

in space but she was the youngest and is still to this day the youngest person ever to go in space. when sally ride was on challenger she was only 32 years old. she and four other astronauts, salty ride gap her career as an astronaut when she answered an ad in a nasa newspaper. 8,000 people answered the ad and 35 astronauts were chosen, including six women, and sally ride always said she knew how very important that flight was. listen. >> i came to appreciate what an honor it was to be selected to be the first woman to get a chance to go into space, and that is important to me, and i think that it's something that i treasure and i really appreciate what an honor it was. >> you know, she flew again on challenger in 1984, and when challenger exploded in 1986 she was asked to help investigate the accident. after leaving nasa in 1989, she

became a physics professor at the university of california san diego, and as we all know, she died last year at the age of 61 of cancer. sally ride, he first woman in space. >> megyn: ride, sally, ride. thanks. we'll be right back. okay team!

after age 40, we can start losing muscle... 8% every 10 years. wow! whoa! but you can help fight muscle loss with exercise and ensure muscle health. i've got revigor. what's revigor? it's the amino acid metabolite hmb. along with protein, ensure helps rebuild muscle and strength naturally lost over time. [ female announcer ] ensure muscle health has revigor and protein to help protect, preserve, and promote muscle health. keeps you from getting soft. [ major nutrition ] ensure. nutrition in charge!

>> people are tweeting about this like mad. and a lot of them, most of them, are on that guy's side. where do you stand? >> i want to know why he was standing in the drive-through. >> maybe he had to get out of his car to make sure. >> i used to work in a drivethrough. if they walked up, i locked the window. >> did you see the loon tack at dunkin' doughnut? >> why i don't go there use, the employees were the victim. >> she myth be at my dunkin'. >> go to the drive-through. >> and don't walk. >> shepard: news begins anew on "studio b." the man that heads one of the most secretive agencies in all the world, forced to testify in capitol hill and defend a once classified surveillance program but the nsa