actually focus on how we make sure something like this does not happen again? i am happy to get their advice and information and council. but the fact of the matter is these four americans, as i said right when it happened, were people i sent into the field. and i've been very clear about taking responsibility for the fact that we were not able to prevent their deaths. and we are doing everything we can to make sure we prevent it, in part because there are still diplomats around the world, who are in very dangerous, difficult situations. and we don't have time to be playing these kinds of political games here in washington. we should be focused on, what are we doing to protect them. that's not easy, by the way. it's going to require resources and tough judgments and tough calls and there are a whole bunch of diplomats out there who know they're in harm's way, and there are threat streams that

come through every so often with respect to our embassies and consulates, that's not just us, by the way, the british have to deal with the same thing. we've got a whole bunch of people in the state department who consistently say i'm willing to step up. i'm willing to put myself in harm's way. because i think that this mission is important in terms of serving the united states and advancing our interests around the globe. and so we, we dishonor them when you know, we turn things like this into a political circus. what happened was tragic. it was carried out by extremists inside of libya. we are out there trying to hunt down the folks who carried this out and we're trying to make sure that we fix the system so that it doesn't happen again. >> thank you. on the issue of the opposition in sir yarks we have not made the decision to arm opposition

groups in syria. what we've done is we've amended the eu arms embargo, in order to give technical assistance and technical advice. and as i've said in my statement. that's exactly what we're doing. we're continuing to examine and look at the eu arms embargo and see if we need to make further changes to it. i do believe there's more we can do alongside technical advice, assistance, help, in order to shape them and work with them. to those who doubt the approach, i would argue if we do not help the syrian opposition, who we do recognize as being legitimate. who have signed up for a statement that the future of syria that's democratic. then we shouldn't be surprised if the extremist elements grow. i think being engaged with the syrian opposition is right approach. an approach i share with the president and other colleagues in the european union.

james andle from the bbc. >> prime minister, you're talking here today about a new eu/u.s. trade deal. and yet members of the party are now talking about leaving the european union. what is your message to them and those pushing for an early referendum and if there were a referendum tomorrow, how would you vote in and mr. president, earlier this year you told david cameron you wanted a strong uk in a strong eu. how concerned are you that members of david cameron's cabinet are now openly contemplating withdrawal? and on syria, if i may have a question to both of you, what gives you any confidence that the russians are going to help you on this? >> well first of all on the issue of a referendum, look, there's not going to be a referendum tomorrow and there's a very good reason why there's not going to be a referendum tomorrow. it would give the british public, an entirely false choice between the stall status quo, which i don't think is

acceptable. i want to see the european union change and i want to see britain's relationship with the european union change. and i don't think that's a choice the british public want or deserve. everything i do in this area is guided by a very simple principle. which is what is in the national interests of britain? is it in the national interests of britain to have a trans-atlantic trade deal that will make our countries more prosperous, that will get people to work, that will help our businesses? yes, it is. so we will push for this trans-atlantic trade deal. is it in our interests to reform the european union? to make it more open, competiti competitive, flexible? yes, it is in our national interests, it is not only in our national interests, it is achievable. because europe has to change because the single currency is driving change. for that part of the european union that is in the single currency. and just as they want changes, so i believe britain is quite entitled to ask for and to get

changes in response. and then finally, is it in britain's national interest, once we have achieved those changes, but before the end of 2017, to consult the british public in a proper full-on in-out referendum? yes, i believe it is. so that's the approach that we take. everything driven by what is in the british national interest. that's what i'm going to deliver. it's absolutely right for our country, it has very strong support throughout the country. and in the conservative party. and that's exactly what i'm going to do. on the syrian issue, you asked a question, what are the signs of russian engagement. well i had very good talks with president putin and sochi on friday. and we had a very frank conversation in that we have approached this. and to some extent, still do approach this in a different way. i have been very vocal in supporting the syrian opposition and saying that assad is, has to go. that he is not legitimate and i

continue to say that. and president putin has taken a different point of view. but where there is a common interest, is that it is in both of our interests is that at the end of this there is a stable, democratic syria, there is a stable neighborhood and we don't encourage the growth of violent extremism and i think both the russian president, the american president and myself, i think we can all see that the current trajectory that how things are going is not actually in anybody's interests. so it is worth this major diplomatic effort. which we are all together leading. this major diplomatic effort to bring the parties to the table. to achieve a transition at the top in syria. so that we can make the change that country needs. barack? >> well respect to the relationship between the uk and the eu, we have a special relationship with the united kingdom. and we believe that our

capacity, to partner with a united kingdom that is active, robust, outward-looking and engaged with the world, is hugely important to our own interests, as well as the world. and i think the uk's participation in the eu is an expression of its influence. and its role in the world as well as obviously a very important economic partnership. now, ultimately, the people of the uk have to make decisions for themselves. i will say this, that the david's basic point, that you probably want to see if you can fix what's broken in a very important relationship before you break it off. makes some sense to me.

and i know that david's been very active in seeking some reforms internal to the eu. those are tough negotiations, you got a lot of countries involved. i recognize that. but so long as we haven't yet evaluated how successful those reforms will be. you know, i at least would be interested in seeing whether or not those are successful. before rendering a final judgment. again, i want to emphasize these are issues for the people of the united kingdom to make a decision about. not ours. with respect to syria, i think david said it very well -- if you look objectively, the entire world community has an interest in seeing a syria that is not

engaged in sectarian war. in which the syrian people are not being slaughtered. that is an island of peace as opposed to potentially an outpost for extremisextremists. that's not just true for the united states, that's not just true for great britain, that's not just true for countries like jordan and turkey that border syria. but that's also true for russia. and you know, i'm pleased to hear that david had a very constructive conversation with president putin. shortly after the conversation that had taken place between john kerry and president putin. i've spoken to president putin several times on this topic. and our basic argument is that as a leader on the world stage, russia has an interest as well

as an obligation to try to resolve this issue. in a way that can lead to the kind of outcome that we'd all like to see over the long-term. and look, i don't think it's any secret that there remains lingering suspicions between russia and other members of the g-8 or the west. it's been several decades now since russia transformed itself and the eastern bloc transformed itself. but you know, some of those suspicions still exist. and part of what my goal has been, john kerry's goal has been and i know david's goal has been, to try to break down some of those suspicions and look objectively at the situation. if in fact we can broker a peaceful political transition,

that leads to assad's departure, but a state in syria that is still intact. that accommodates the interests of all the ethnic groups, all the religious groups inside of syria. and that ends the bloodshed, stabilizes the situation, that's not just going to be good for us, that will be good for everybody and we're going to be very persistent in trying to make that happen. i'm not promising that it's going to be successful. frankly, sometimes once the furies have been unleashed in a situation like we're seeing in syria, it's very hard to put things back together. and you know, there is there are going to be enormous challenges in getting a credible process going. even if russia is involved. because we still have other

countries like iran and we have nonstate actors like hezbollah that have been actively involved. and frankly, on the other side, we've got organizations like al nusra, that are essentially affiliated to al qaeda, that have another agenda beyond just getting rid of assad. so all of that makes a combustible mix and it's going to be challenging. but it's worth the effort and what we can tell you is that we're always more successful in any global effort when we've got a strong friend and partner like great britain by our side and strong leadership by prime minister david cameron. all right? thank you very much, everybody. thank you. we're back now, that was the president, he opened with some soft material about mother's day and basketball and krilcricket. and he talked about the appalling situation in syria and we need to strengthen the modern

opposition. and it got very quick to the issue of irs and to the issue of benghazi. back with me is david corn. and care r budoff-brown and mark ginsberg, former u.s. ambassador to morocco and former presidential adviser to barack obama. >> and david corn, he called it outrageous, he said i'm not going to tolerate it. he didn't go so far as to say heads will roll. was he strong enough in his condemnation, david corn? >> i don't think he could have been strong enough. people are worried about this sort of stuff. they don't want the irs fiddling around. irs is an independent agency. >> to what extent? >> that means the president can't really pick up the phone and say you're out of here, you're out of here. what he could say is, i'm going to watch this like a hawk and i'm going to demand action more than just not tolerate it. >> let's go to chuck todd with the white house with the first word from the white house. go ahead.

>> i would say when you look at the president's, what could you tell was personal outrage at what he thinks are illegitimate questions being thrown at his administration about benghazi there are plenty of people going to compare sort of the tone and the defiance he took on the benghazi question, versus the irs. i'm with david corn. i think there was no, you can't get over-mad about something like that there was no, if you're looking for. and it did seem to me that you could tell the president himself as he began his condemnation of the irs, it was very clinical and then as he was finishing up, he got a little more, you could see that he was showing a little more personal outrage as he went on in that. so if people are going to sit here and if you're going to compare the two, you know, so in style points, you could tell that he seemed more defiant and clearly very upset at what he thinks are unfair questions on the benghazi front versus on the irs. he seemed to be careful frankly probably due to the actual investigation that's still going

on. because you do have that issue. you don't want to overstep on that front, either, chris. >> chuck, just the other day, the speaker of the house, john boehner, probably the most important republican around, said that benghazi is going to be his issue. he's obsessed about it, committed to it and for the president to call it a sideshow. talk about a 180. to dismiss the main concern now politically of the opposition leader as a sideshow. he's basically straight-armed the guy, is this going to work? >> think about what he said, sideshow, political circus and no "there" there. a real shot across the bow to republican who is want to make this a be-all, end-all of the president's second term that seems to be the shot. you wonder is it because of speaker boehner's threat on this it's interesting to me, you talk about speaker boehner saying what he did on benghazi. this morning the only issue mitch mcconnell, the senate republican leader had had in his

morning agenda email -- irs. you could tell i think that more and more, i think republicans climb aboard the irs issue. because it is one of those issues that can unite the republican base. particularly those republicans like mitch mcconnell. concerned that the tea party might challenge him. >> i think this is to me, a long-legged scandal. anyway, thank you so much, chuck todd at the white house. here's the president talking about benghazi and the way that he just dismissed it as a sideshow, a very strong-armed approach to the issue. let's listen. >> the whole issue of this, of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow. the -- what we have been very clear about throughout was that immediately after this event happened, we were not clear who exactly had carried it out, how it had occurred, what the ramifications were.

it happened at the same time we had seen attacks on u.s. embassies in cairo as a consequence of this film. and nobody understood exactly what was taking place during the course of those first few days. and the emails that you allude to were provided by us to congressional committees. they reviewed them several months ago, concluded that in fact there was nothing afoul in terms of the process that we had used. and suddenly three days ago, this gets spun up as if there's something new to the story. >> we've got ambassador mark ginsberg. thank you for joining us. this at the time, i remember sitting in my home watching susan rice, the ambassador to the united nations for us, give what i thought was a very strong political defense of the president that sunday.

i thought she earned her spurs as possibly the next secretary of state. i thought she was serving the political cause in the biggest sense of the president. and was very strong, authoritative and i thought compelling. for them to -- i don't think the president can carefully say now, that wasn't a big part of our presentation. that i spoke to her three days later and gave the official position. i think that was a well had been prepared, very well thought-through presentation and selection of the right spokesperson, in this case, the ambassador to the u.n. how important is this going to be a week, a year from now in terms of next year's election. what susan rice said or didn't say that sunday on "meet the press"? >> well chris, i think that in the end, the president is accurate. these talking points become a sideshow to what really is the heart of the issue. you and i discussed this earlier. why are these officials in the state department and which the american people want to see held accountable for the denial of security requests that the state department denied to our ambassador and its embassy. this is where the whistleblowers

that we're hearing are prepared to step forward and other foreign service officers feel intimidated. i'm convinced if these people were ultimately held accountable and american people were aware of the decision-making that led to these deaths notice first place, was resolved, all of this talk about talking points would become immaterial. i think the real problem goes back to the fact that americans, republicans and democrats alike, want to know why these four americans did not have the security that they should have had and if that issue and answer was not resolved by the investigative panel led by tom pickering or it was resolved but not necessarily revealed in the confidential report that is still secret, that's why there are outstanding questions. >> carrie? is that still the heart of this intrigue? this mystery? why were our people killed? or is it what did the white house do to, if they did, cover it up? >> i think there's a couple of different levels of this story.

i don't think the talking points issue is the same as four people getting killed. but in washington to the speaker of the house of representatives, the most powerful republican in washington, the talking points issue and the development of the aftermath of how the administration dealt with this, it's not the sideshow and there's certainly not treating it at that. that's in itself a huge challenge for the president, he is going to continue to say it's a sideshow. the white house truly believes that it is. they're very frustrated, very annoyed with what the republicans are doing. they don't feel it's honest or truthful. they've known about the talking points for months, they're bringing it up now. there's a lot of distrust on the white house's end to how this is being played out. you saw that in the president's response today. they'll continue to try to point to the fact. >> they're not winning. >> that's what you have when you have a republican in front of the house. >> we're talking about benghazi, that serves the interests of the opposition. but it may well serve the interest of truth as we're finding out more and more.

>> we're talking about benghazi because four americans died and it has to be fixed. how about embassy security? how about the funding for embassy security? how about the ability of our diplomats in the field who the president reminded us are still out there in harm's way -- how about their ability to get the resources they need? what we need to focus on the future as well. >> i were there, i understand your concern. >> republicans have five committees working on this, they're focusing far more on the talking points than on the substantive issues that joe just raised. >> you know the political motivation of the party has not been happy with how they have to deal with immigration. they're not happy about being the gun party. they're looking for an issue and maybe they've found one. here's the president a few moments ago talking about ambassador susan rice and her statement on "meet the press" and also the whole talking points issue. here he is on that. >> if this was some effort on our part to try to downplay what had happened or tamp it down, that would be a pretty odd thing, that three days later we

end up putting out all the information that in fact has now served as the basis for everybody recognizing that this was a terrorist attack and that it may have included elements that were planned by extremists inside of libya. >> richard wolffe, you know the president very well, and you've written a book about him. i've never seen that look, the intensity as a projection of what he thinks about the opposition and how they've been playing this thing. >> he's upset about it for a number of reasons, but remember what he's actually talking about is the question that republicans have never been able to nail down. which is motive. why would the white house want this cover-up? they've suggested all sorts of things about you know, maybe they were to blame for the security failings in the first place. that didn't work because actually of course, house republicans cut the security budget and the security request. so there's joint culpability in

terms of the security failings. just at the end of last week we heard house republicans again saying well, the white house or someone stopped them from sending in air force jets to buzz the compound and drive the terrorists away. and then you have robert gates say actually that's ridiculous and cartoonish. so the last thing comes down to motive about the talking points. and the question is here -- >> you know, richard, you saw the debate, one of the great moments of the debate from the president's perspective is when he was able to come back at mitt romney and say to mitt romney's dismay and shock. i did call it terrorism right afterwards. so it is about that issue. did the democratic party and through its president and through the administration, try to downplay the role of terrorism right before an election? that's what their main motive, i think most people believe. >> number one he did make that statement in the rose garden. the transcript is there. two agencies, the state and the c.i.a. arguing about whether they could actually name the

suspected targets a few days after the attacks. and then there's this question of well, did they want to talk about it at all and why would you send susan rice out there? so the motive question doesn't stand up to the actual event. nor does it stand up to the actual reporting kpr contemporaneously saying widespread report saying this event in benaz kir ocairo, whic wrong, but was widely reported at the time. >> was this a sideshow, is the issue of benghazi and how it was described tothe days thereafter, the tra chris the others, is it a sideshow? is it created, is it a confection? the president says it is. >> well that's also the language that's the exact phrase used by my colleague, joe klein in his column. he describes it as a sideshow, too. i would say at best this is very, very weak beer. it is, if this is the issue that the republicans are looking to use against the president over

benghazi, then they're on very, very weak ground. if i were in the republican party, i'd be paying much more attention to the irs scandal. >> well, true, because all politics is local, someone once said. people are more concerned about how much money they have to give away to the government of their income every year. david corn, thank you as always. thank you carrie, and joel reuben. carrie budhoff-brown, and richard wollffe and bobby ghosh. and mark ginsberg. thanks so much, for joining us, that wraps things up for all of us. i'll be back tonight for "hardball," we'll go to these very topics. now coming up "now" with alex wagner, the host and also with host joy reid filling in after this break.

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. 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. you may be muddling through allergies. try zyrtec-d®. powerful relief of nasal congestion and other allergy symptoms -- all in one pill. zyrtec-d®. at the pharmacy counter.

[ female announcer ] what does beauty feel like? ♪ and where does it begin? ♪ it begins with your skin. venus embrace. every five-bladed stroke gives you 360 degrees of smooth revealing goddess skin you can feel and feel. only from venus embrace. also in disposables.

weech had folks who have challenged hillary clinton's integrity, susan rice's integri integrity. mike mullen and tom pickering's integrity. it's a given that mine gets challenge by these same folks. they use it for fundraising. if anybody out there wants to actually focus on how we make sure something like this does not happen again -- i am happy to get their advice and information and counsel. >> i'm joy reid, in for alex wagner, that was president obama speaking at a bilateral press conference alongside british prime minister david cameron this past hour with impassioned words about the sustained investigation into benghazi. the gop has to find something, anything, to pin on the obama administration. perhaps even something that could remove him from office. >> of all the great cover-ups in history, we're talking about the pentagon papers, the iran

contra, watergate and all the rest of them, this i said back in november 28th on fox, is going to go down as the most serious, most egregious cover-up in american history. people may be starting to use the i-word before too long. >> i-word meaning impeachment. >> worst than watergate, worst than pentagon papers. his senate colleagues, john mccain and susan collins pushed back against the discussion of impeachment. but inhov may find more of a welcome audience with republicans. >> a senior gop aide is quotes that boehner is obsessed with it. congressman darrell issa is the public face of the republican scandal hunt as chair of the house oversight committee. when questioned by david greg oh on "meet the press." issa had trouble explaining what

exactly republicans are charging and who they believe is to blame. >> what is the big picture here? you're saying that the administration officials, these political advisers to the president or nonpolitical appointees, bullied the c.i.a. into saying what the -- political advisers in the white house wanted them to say? is that your charge? >> david we're not making charges. you said the c.i.a. had to back down from what they originally wantsed to say and david petraeus said what the white house wanted him to say. those are serious charges. >> those talking points are not the starting talking points, they're the ending talking points. we're not reaching every conclusion. we're not accusing who changed that. >> okay. joining me today, nbc news political analyst, former governor ed rendell. editor of "the nation" katrina va vandenhuevel. >> i think david gregory makes a

good point. republicans haven't clarified what the scandal is. one of the things they've said is essentially that susan rice was sent to lie about the culprits in the benghazi attack. to believe that is a scandal. because it was to protect barack obama's re-election. to believe that don't you have to believe that had the american known that ansar al sharia, they were going to vote for mitt romney, had they just known it was that group. >> in watching the press conference, i was taken by the president's anger and frustration, it's beginning to burn now. you can see that i thought john boehner's position on everything over the last four years, was jobs, about the job creators, now his own staffer says off the record to politico, he's obsessed with benghazi, that's because he has no contribution to be making to the ongoing governance of the nation. this is about as you've said in your introduction, very clearly,

finding a route to undermine the president. and unfortunately, this isn't a very good one. because although four people were killed, it is not obvious that the president of the united states was responsible in any way for those deaths. in fact as i looked at the facts, one of the things i keep coming back to is that it was the republicans who denied the administration $128 million in 2011 fiscal year and $331 million in fiscal funding for embassy security around the world. and yet, that never, ever gets mentioned. that's what boehner should be focused on. not this ludicrous witchhunt. you know i think that's an excellent point. if they're going to investigate congress. shouldn't they also investigate why the funding was cut for our 294 embassies and consuls around the world? shouldn't they ask the question that be a how did an obscure

group figure out there was embassy that could be under attack. >> we saw an embassy taken in iran. scores and scores of attacks on consulates, embassies, compounds. 64 attacks during the george w. bush administration. yet the republicans in the spirit of limited government have cut the funding. but i think this country also deserves to know how we're going to go forward. libya is a lawless, unstable country right now. where are the security concerns being addressed right now? and finally this country deserve as real substantive conversation about what kind of foreign policy are we going to have. if we're going to intervene in such countries we will see more attacks. if we're ready to do that. we need to be prepared. instead, john boehner convened the heads of the committees, investigating been gassi, which has been an obsession for a long period of time. about a month ago. said what can we do to gin this up. because the republicans campaigning in 2014 don't have an issue. they haven't created a job in

sight. they need an issue and the base is saying to some of these republicans, come back with this red meat of benghazi. so the republicans ginned it up. mccain, kelly ayotte and lindsay graham should be held accountable, too. they're supposed to be the serious people in washington and they're participating in this obsession. >> if you look in my inbox, every other email is a right winger with the word "benghazi." i challenge many of them to find libya on a map. they're obsessed with benghazi. because it's political. this is the new strategy of the republican party. democrat gets elected to a second term, find a way to impeach him. >> they've not obsessed with benghazi. they're obsessed with obama. this is not a serious party. you know years ago we used to talk about the lunatic fringe, now one of the major political parties in this country, the gop is the lunatic fringe when it comes to policy and politics in this country and it's really, it's tragic because they've

frozen the levers of government. we can't get syria's business done in washington primarily because of the obstructionism of the gop. >> we talk about the obsession with obama. but ed rendell governor, i forgot to give you your proper title, in this context it's not just obsession with obama, but it's also reviving the age-old obsession with the clintons, hillary clinton. isn't this also about hillary and could this come back to haunt her if she runs for president? >> i don't think so. look, martin and bob made the best points this is crucial because it's killing our ability to get anything done. and we can't put issues like immigration, the debt -- >> gun violence, gun safety legislation. >> we can't put these off to the next president, it has to be done now. is it poisoning the atmosphere? yes, the real questions are why these four people died. by the way, there's not just one

answer. it's not just that they cut the funding. there were breakdowns in communications and we've got to fix those. we've got to be serious about it. and even on the post-the so-called cover-up afterwards, it's a sideshow just like whitewater was a sideshow, it didn't mean anything, just an attempt to cripple the government. and cripple the government from doing anything positive. but there are still some legitimate questions. the president did in the rose garden say it was an act of terrorism and three days later his official representative went on all the sunday shows and said no, it wasn't an act of terrorism. >> i would challenge you on saying that this isn't going to be used against hillary clinton. because rand paul -- >> it will be used against her. >> has consistently. rand paul is defining the 2016 campaign between him and a potential hillary clinton presidential run, on the basis of benghazi. he's the one -- >> three years away. three years if now most people won't be able to spell benghazi. >> i think this is going to

back-fire on republicans, like so many of their -- >> i do have to ask martin. the other question that came up in the press conference was on syria. we want to get one question to you on that does david cameron's government have any more influence with russia than the obama administration might in terms of trying to get russia to come to an accommodation on syria? >> i don't think so, because russia's relationship with assad has been so firm. i don't think that's the case. also remember, cameron leads the nation that is as concerned about entering yet another middle eastern conflict as the president of the united states. tony blair's premiership has been destroyed. not withstanding all the great things that he did purely on the basis of bogus intelligence that led british service personnel to die in iraq. he doesn't have any more leverage if that's what you're asking.

remember this -- david cameron leads a coalition that is beginning to fragment even as we speak. he was talking earlier about holding a referendum on european membership in 2017. he may not be the prime minister beyond 2015. i don't think that the russians are in any way more obligated to listen to him than they are the united states. >> i have to say, though, that that press conference, i think it will be marked as a turning point. there has been a view in this country and in the uk, that one doesn't need to engage russia in international terrorism. we saw the president of the united states, the prime minister of great britain saying we have to engage russia and that russia has legitimate mats -- that russia also wants a stable syria. that they understand. this was a turning point in my view in the way we -- >> i think it started with john kerry last week. i think kerry led the way in relation to the russians. >> the irony is that susan rice if she had been secretary of state, we may not have been in this position, because john

kerry has a very different approa approach. not humanitarian intervention, with syria. >> the intelligence failures that led to iraq have sort of poisoned the ability of the u.s. and the uk to work together on sirria there's no trust, when the c.i.a. comes calling and says slam-dunk on nukes, well obviously that's not true. thank you very much, martin b h bash bashir, thank you very much. >> after the co-author of its controversial immigration study resigns. but, was the dissertation on immigration simply a blunder by heritage or a symptom of wink and nod zenophobia, we'll discuss, just ahead. [ female announcer ] doctors trust calcium plus vitamin d to support strong bones. and the brand most recommended by... my doctor. my gynecologist. my pharmacist. citracal.

citracal. [ female announcer ] you trust your doctor. doctors trust citracal. with one extraordinary purpose... to get "man of steel" advanced screening tickets. [ movie announcer voice ] at walmart. see "man of steel" at your local theater before anyone else. get in line 8 a.m. may 18th at walmart. rated pg-13. there was this and this. she got a parking ticket... ♪ and she forgot to pay her credit card bill on time. good thing she's got the citi simplicity card. it doesn't charge late fees or a penalty rate. ever. as in never ever. now about that parking ticket. [ grunting ] [ male announcer ] the citi simplicity card is the only card that never has late fees, a penalty rate, or an annual fee, ever. go to citi.com/simplicity to apply. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 hours can go by before i realize tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 that i haven't even looked away from my screen. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550

tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 that kind of focus... tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 that's what i have when i trade. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and the streetsmart edge trading platform from charles schwab... tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 ...helps me keep an eye on what's really important to me. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 it's packed with tools that help me work my strategies, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 spot patterns and find opportunities more easily. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 then, when i'm ready... act decisively. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 i can even access it from the cloud and trade on any computer. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 with the exact same tools, the exact same way. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and the reality is, with schwab mobile, tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 i can focus on trading anyplace, anytime... tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 ...until i choose to focus on something else. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 all this with no trade minimums. and only $8.95 a trade. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 open an account with a $50,000 deposit, and get 6 months commission-free trades. tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 call 1-800-711-5509 tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 and a trading specialist tdd#: 1-800-345-2550 will help you get started today.

this is pretty straightforward.

if in fact irs personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on, and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that's outrageous. and there's no place for it they have to be held fully accountable. >> that was president obama reacting to reports that irs employees singled out conservative political groups for extra scrutiny prior to the 2012 election. joining the panel now is assistant managing editor for "time" magazine, rona fruhar. i want to start with you, jay carney spoke to this issue of the irs, local officials in the cincinnati office of the irs, that were looking at groups that were sending in applications to be 501 c 4. he said the irs is an independent enforcement agency with only two political appointees. now when he says these two

political appointees, he means the general counsel of the irs and the commissioner who is really the boss. doug shulman was that person during this time period. he a republican, a george bush appointee. is there a credible way to charge that the administration somehow influenced a republican george bush appointee to somehow scuttle the attempts of tea party groups to become 501 c 4s? >> it's a great question, i think the jury still out. i think the president's comments were absolutely accurate. my colleague joe klein has a great point about the whole issue. the president has been rightfully proud of the lack of scandal in his administration so far. if you think about it, an $800 billion stimulus package. no opponents could find no evidence of graft there. there's been no major scandals of top aides. but we do need to get to the bottom of this. it is kind of a cut-and-dry thing. whoever is responsible should be

fired. >> the response in 2004, bob, when the irs not investigated to allow a 501 c 4, but actually audited the naacp because the head of the naacp made some statements against george w. bush, i remember the outrage and the firings over there were oh, wait a minute, there were no outrage and there were no firings. we've had these scandals before. where were the republicans in 2004? >> we know that everyone will play politics with this sort of thing. i think both sides would the problem with politics here, though, is that when you're talking about the irs, you're talking about the heart and soul of americans' faith in the governmental process. and so the president has to just come down or he really needs to come down hard on this issue. we need an investigation. let it lead to wherever it goes and then the people who are responsible, they have to, they have to be fired. and if there were any violations of law here, people have to be prosecuted. >> i think there are two scandals here, katrina. >> two?

>> one is the obvious wrongdoing by those people who shouldn't have been targeting specific people with the names tea party. full stop. but the other one is the whole idea of 501 c 4 social welfare organizations. crossroads gps, is that a social welfare organization. americans for prosperity. so the idea is you can create a 501 c 4 and tax-free people can give unlimited amounts of money to you and you can use it for politics but you're not really supposed to. >> a little history and context. first of alls, the irs has had a long history of harassment and thuggery on all sides. after the citizens united decision and we saw the unleashing of corporate money, a lot of groups formed as 501 c 4s, to avoid disclosure. disclosure was something that even judges who pushed for, who you know, passed citizens united said we must have disclosure. so what we need is a cleaning out of that category. we need to look very hard on all

sides, transpartisan investigation. of what is going on with the money sloshing around in our system in the guise of these political welfare groups. i think that's key. and i do think bob is absolutely right. cuts across everything we've been talking about today. faith in government in crisis. and we're witnessing people working really hard who hate government to discredit government and people you know, the irs story. you can see the cranking up, if you can call it of emails now, fueling the anti-government conspiracies, but we got to look at the 501 c 4s, across the board how they're used. >> i want to get one i've worked a little bit in campaign politics, isn't also the issue that whenever there's an opportunity, like the tea party, something that seems to be a grassroots groundswell, political consultants come in and you start forming all of these groups. there were hundreds and hundreds of groups springing up, wanting the designation. these folks obviously shouldn't have been targeted. but isn't that a reality of our

politics, people can make a buck, create an organization and get tax-free standing. >> the problem with 501 c 4s, exists on both sides of the aisle. we have groups that i support in the same questionable category and it should be cleaned out. it should be done by congressional action. they should take away the designation or make it full disclosure, that's number one. number two, i think it has real potential. benghazi, no potential to affect elections. in 2012, right before the election, sandy came and it reminded the american people that government is important. and now this is going to remind the people that government sometimes can be the oppressor. that's why, if i was the president, i wouldn't have minced words. i would have said, if the evidence bears out what appears to be, appears to be right now, i want people fired. >> you can't fire doug shulman, because he's already retired. we do have to go. but you know, you can't fire him. i'll end on that.

>> coming up,ed trouble for the heritage foundation, we will discuss the think tank's big miss on immigration next. ♪ [ female announcer ] from more efficient payments. ♪ to more efficient pick-ups. ♪ wireless is limitless. the next day, we sprayed febreze air effects and asked real people what they thought. i can't believe i don't smell any of this. febreze did a really great job. impressive. febreze air effects eliminates tough odors for good. febreze, breathe happy.

prego?! but i've been buying ragu for years. [ thinking ] i wonder what other questionable choices i've made? [ club scene music ] [ sigh of relief ] [ male announcer ] choose taste. choose prego. [ female announcer ] from meeting customer needs... to meeting patient needs... ♪ wireless is limitless.

last week, after the heritage foundation released its cost estimate on the immigration bill, the "washington post" revealed the questionable ideology of one of the reports' authors, jason richwine who argued in his harvard dissertation that the iq of latino immigrants was too low for them ever to assimilate into american culture. on friday, he resigned if his post at hartage. memo to the hartage foundation, before you try to sabotage legislation on capitol hill, make sure you take the time to do a little research on your own employees. i want to ask, i'm not 100% sure

that heritage had no idea on this guy's ideology. this is guy who even now is not walking back from what he said. he resigned by richwynne told the "washington times" i don't apologize for anything that i said, but i do regret i couldn't give more detail and i also regret that i didn't think more about how the average lay person would perceive these things. the things he is talking about are the 2008 views and a voo he gave to the american enterprise back in 2008. this is the views he's not apologizing for. decades of testing has indicated that at least in america you have jews with the highest average iq followed by east asians, then nonjewish whites, hispanics and then blacks. anyone who wants to take that up. do we have a problem on the right with somebody who is interrule with response to the immigration reform believing stuff like that. >> the problem on the right and the problem with the republican party is for decades they have

served as a safe house for bigotry in this country. and not enough has been made of it. they have not been held accountable. and the way it affects real people is that the republican party's policies for so many, for so many years have been hostile to the interests of african-americans, latinos, poor people and others. this is a big aspect of american life and we need to address it honestly. so far nobody has any interest in doing it. and if we don't do it, this sort of thing is going to continue. >> but, what is the upside of this. by putting out this report and having richwine so thoroughly discredit it -- >> i wish we could reset the whole segment and have bullet points with the real research, all of which shows how great immigration is economically for this country an how it's our major competitive advantage going forward. i think that's the debate we

should be having. >> i think it's important because heritage was treated as a respectful force inside washington. it was reagan's think tank, it played a major role. and as much as it can be exposed what we've seen the fringe is now part of the mainstream. the, as you said, i mean we're witnessing the job birch-its, the far right come in and jim demint, who was the tea party's spokesperson, point person has now said it. as much as we can expose what's going on in these think tanks which gets conveyed to the right to take it i think we do. >> if they start measure skulls inside heritage, we should worry. the richwine's statement was to the "washington examiner" not the "washington times." alex returns to this very chair tomorrow at noon and until then, you can follow us on twitt

twitter @nowwithalex. "andrea mitchell reports" is next. 're not ready for spring. well let's get you ready. very nice. you see these various colors. got workshops every saturday. yes, maybe a little bit over here. summer's here. so are the savings. not bad. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. get special buys on select toro products, like this self propelled mower just $274. what makes a sleep number what makes a sleep number store different? you walk into a conventional mattress store, it's really not about you. they say, "well, if you wanted a firm bed you can lie on one of those. if you want a soft bed you can lie on one of those." we provide the exact individualization that your body needs. the sleep number memorial day sale. not just ordinary beds on sale, but the bed that can change your life on sale. the sleep number bed. this is your body there. you can see a little more pressure in the hips. take it up one notch.

oh gosh, yes. you get that moment where you go, "oh yeah" ... oh, yeah! ... and it's perfect. they had no idea that when they came to a sleep number store, we were going to diagnose their problems and help them sleep better. and right now save on the closeout of our classic special edition bed set. just $1299-a savings of $600-and discover the only memory foam bed with dual air adjustability. once you experience it, there's no going back. wow. don't invest in a mattress until you find your sleep number setting. sale ends june 2nd. only at the sleep number store. sleep number. comfort individualized a body at rest tends to stay at rest... while a body in motion tends to stay in motion. staying active can actually ease arthritis symptoms. but if you have arthritis, staying active can be difficult. prescription celebrex can help relieve arthritis pain so your body can stay in motion. because just one 200mg celebrex a day can provide 24 hour relief for many with arthritis pain and inflammation.

plus, in clinical studies, celebrex is proven to improve daily physical function so moving is easier. celebrex can be taken with or without food. and it's not a narcotic. you and your doctor should balance the benefits with the risks. all prescription nsaids, like celebrex, ibuprofen, naproxen and meloxicam have the same cardiovascular warning. they all may increase the chance of heart attack or stroke, which can lead to death. this chance increases if you have heart disease or risk factors such as high blood pressure or when nsaids are taken for long periods. nsaids, like celebrex, increase the chance of serious skin or allergic reactions or stomach and intestine problems, such as bleeding and ulcers, which can occur without warning and may cause death. patients also taking aspirin and the elderly are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers. don't take celebrex if you have bleeding in the stomach or intestine, or had an asthma attack, hives, other allergies to aspirin, nsaids or sulfonamides. get help right away if you have swelling of the face or throat, or trouble breathing. tell your doctor your medical history. and find an arthritis treatment for you. visit celebrex.com and ask your doctor about celebrex.

for a body in motion. if you've got the irs operating in anything less than a neutral and nonpartisan way, then that is outrageous, it is contrary ri to our traditions and people have to be held accountable and it's got to be fixed. >> president insisted those responsible will be held accountable as you heard. senate democrats including majority leader reid are now joining republicans in expressing outrage and the retiring chairman of the senate finance committee says his committee will investigate this quote outrageous abuse of power. on