testing. >> that you, yourself have experienced and had to act on. looking down the barrel of genetic probability is something i think a lot of us are going to be experiencing for ourselves. thank you both so much. that is all in for this evening. the rachel maddow show starts now. good evening, rachel. >> thank you very much and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. new york city is the largest city united states. we all think of it as a sprawling metropolis. it is easy to forget you are on an island in the north atlantic. manhattan is surrounded by water. staten island is surrounded by water. all the new york city boroughs have coastlines and it is possible to do some very good fishing, so north atlantic fishing in se brooklyn, new york. i know this because i caught this fish in brooklyn on friday

morning before i came to work. look at the size of that striper that i caught in brooklyn. you can fish in prook lynn. and there are a lot of people who to it for fun and people who do it commercially and on june 14th, 1971, at a fish company in brooklyn, a very strange thing happened. the previous day, "the new york times" had started publishing the pentagon papers along four multivolume narrative history of a war in vietnam. this thing was never supposed to be made public, but it was stolen from the government by a whistleblower who thought the public should have access to the same information about the war the government had. it was smuggled to the "new york times" an the times made the difficult decision to publish the papers and when the times published the first installment on june 13th, 1971, the paper must have been waiting for the other shoe to drop. they knew what they were doing.

how big a storm this was going to cause. they were waiting. they must have been waiting for what would be the inevitable response from the government, the demand they cease publication and all the rest, but they published this thing on june 13th and there was no response from the government. and that's because it turns out that on june 14th, the day after they started publishing the pentagon papers, there had been an angry, threatening telegram written by the attorney general to the "new york times" demandinging that they cease publication of these document, but the fbi accidentally sent the telegram to a fish company in brooklyn instead of to the "new york times." and so what the "new york times" heard the day they published the pentagon papers and the day after was nothing. and this fish company in brooklyn must have been very, very confused by the angry telegram they got from the attorney general.

eventually, the attorney general and fbi got it together and stent telegram to the "new york times" demanding the return of the pentagon papers and no further publication. the times said no. they published on the 13th, the 14th, the 15th, then the government got a temporary restraining order blocking them from publishing anything further. pentagon papers was the first time the government had used courts to block the press from publishing something the press wanted to publish based on national security grounds. and that temporary restraining order they got of the pentagon papers, that ended up becoming a major federal first amendment case. the newspaper involved in the case within a week had lost the district court level. they appealed to the circuit court level and by the end of the month, june 30th, 1971, the case had gone to the supreme court. they started publishing it on the 13th.

by the 30th, the supreme court ruling that the government could not block newspapers from publishing this stuff. some government lost that effort to block the press from publishing something that the press wanted to publish but the government said would be dangerous to publish. the government lost at the supreme court. but that does not mean they got over it. you know how in watergate, the burglars were called the plumbers? they were not called the plumbers because they dressed up like plumbers. the reason they were breaking into the various places they broke into was that they were plugging leaks. they were plumbers dealing with leaks, but these were leaks of information. they were trying to find out who in government was providing secret information to the news media, including the pentagon papers. that was the whole origin of the plumbers and there by stop the

press from publishing something the government does not want published. it has been really important from the beginning of our constitutional republic. there is a reason the freedom of the press is the first amendment. it's because the founders knew how important it was to tell the truth and they knew the temptations for people in power to stop the press from doing that. they said amendment one, we are taking sides of this fight. we know it is going to persist throughout the duration of this nation. we are taking sides and we are taking the side of the press. the press housed the constitution's protection clearly in these inevitable fights and that is a fundamental part of what our country is.

i take it as a sign of their wisdom in being so clear on the matter in that these are not seen as settled. they keep happening all over again in every century, every presidency just about. we need to reread and demand respect from the first amendment because this is an important fight. the important fights are the ones that don't go away. at the end of 2005, just decided they always needed warrants before, they didn't anymore. the response to the administration to the publication of that story was not just to deny the story or to express unhappiness with the fact that this government policy was known and they wanted to keep it secret. the response from the administration was instead to

demand that reporter be thrown in prison. that he be compelled to reveal his sources, to reveal who had given him the secret information. they subpoenaed him to demand he give up his sources and jim made clear in his fighting with the court, that the administration was really using everything it had to go after him. quote, the first subpoena issued to me was the culmination of a long campaign against me by the bush administration and it's supporters. president bush called the disclosures a shameful act and the administration and its supporters publicly speculated about me for espionage. after that, an organized campaign of hate mail from right wing groups with close ties to the white house was launched.

meanwhile, protesters supporting the bush administration picketed my office. pundits and bloggers supporting the bush administration took to tv and internet to call for the white house and justice department to prosecute me for espionage. going after reporters, using the full power of the federal government to stop reporters from publishing things the government did not want published. pete hoekstra, quote, they will be sitting in jail by the end of the year unless they reveal their sources. around the time that the right had the torches and pitch forks out, abc news reported that the

government was not just demanding reporters reveal their sources and threatened to put them in jail if they did not, they were secretly going through journalist's phone records. according to a senior federal law enforcement official, the incoming and outgoing numbers were being monitored by the government as part of a widespread leak investigation. the title was federal source to abc news, we know who you're calling. it's chilling, right? you're a reporter. trying to find out what the government is doing, but if you find out too much about what the government is doing, hey, you might end up in jail. you certainly can't tell your sources that you'll keep their identity safe. you can't tell your sources that they can trust you to keep their identities out of it. if you have to tell them, yeah, they're probably going to put me in prison until i tell them. this is chilling. this is chilling on purpose and those details reported by abc

news in 2006 to reporters to try to ferret out who was leaking to these reporters, right, it appears to be exactly what the administration is doing now. it is exactly the same thing. in an investigation that appears to be related to ap reporting on the cia busting up an al-qaeda bomb plot a few years ago, the justice department has notified the ap that at least 20 of their phone lines including numbers of their reporters were swept up in a dragnet by the justice department. two months worth of phone records were obtained by the fbi. it is over and done with. when the ap published that story about a year ago about the bomb plot, the response on the right was kind of a mini version of the torches and pitch forks that came out in the 2000s. but in this case because it's a democratic president, the outrage on the right was directed at not just the reporters, it was against the

government. they were alleging that the administration doesn't care enough about classified information being leaked. if they really cared, they would freaking investigate it. they would chase this thing down. >> what the president ought to be saying is that this is very damaging to the country. and we're going to do everything we can to get to the bottom of it, whether it involves my white house or where ever in the intelligence community. >> well, we certainly need to have an investigation of what has happened. >> the question is, do we really have an independent and aggressive investigation because these leaks are very, very disturbing. >> republicans last june demanding a serious investigation into these dastardly leaks. well, they got their investigation and as part of that, the attorney general himself was investigated as to whether maybe he was the leak to those ap reporters or perhaps

did he know who was the leak and because the attorney general himself was interviewed as part of the investigation, he could not himself head up the investigation, he recused himself to avoid a conflict of interest, but two u.s. attorneys were appointed to investigate the leaks. we now know as part of this investigation that we got this unprecedented tracking of 20 different phone lines and that justice department just decided to do that on their own. never had to get permission from a court. there had been a media shield law that said if you want to wiretap reporters, you have to get a court to sign off on it.

but this was defeated by a republican filibuster in 2007. a few new details. one additional name today in terms of ap reporters and editors who were targeted by the subpoena of their phone records. we know it was outgoing phone calls that were subpoenaed by the justice department. not necessarily the incoming numbers or duration of those calls. the deputy attorney general who was in charge of this investigation also said today that supposedly, the content of these reporter's calls was not monitored. it was just the fact that the call went out and what number it went to, we got the white house denying any involvement or knowledge. the attorney general saying this was out of his call, he was out of the loop. we got the ap today, more livid today than yesterday that this is happening as they get more information from the government about what their news bureaus and reporters were subjected to and we've got all of this happening within the context of this great american fight.

the inevitable prime and pressure of an aggressive free press. the repeated familiar overreaching efforts of the government to stop the press from doing that. and most importantly, the fact that the writers of our constitution knew that government would always be tempted to act this way and that's why they made it very, very clear that our constitution takes sides. this fight is inevitable, but in america, the winner of this fight is also inevitable. so, how is the ap going to win this fight? joining us now is david schultz, thank you for being with us tonight. >> thank you, rachel. >> i'm sure that long exposition of the facts and my take on them does not exactly comport with yours, but in term of the ap's role in this, i should ask you -- >> i think you got it just right. >> it is a constant balancing

act in the united states. t prel security or anything the government doesn't want disclosed. is it the ap's position that the justice department is within its rights to be investigating these leaks? it's just that they are doing it in a way that is too rushed. >> sure. i think the key, there is an inherent conflict between the government's ability to keep secrets and the ability of people to oversee their government, that you have to have access to government information. you need confidential sources to give you that information or the only things you're going to know about the government is what they're going to tell you. the real problem here is is that in the mess after watergate --

regulations were put in place to mediate that line, to set up rules that would help us not overreach, the give the press a zone of protection they would operate in. those were in the form of regulations that were imposed, adopted by the department of justice and they formed provisions. one was that the government was required under the regulation not to go after reporters information unless it was critical. number two, they could only go after it if there were no alternative sources. they had to exhaust all of their alternative sources and number three, if they were going after it, they had to make it as narrow as possible so they weren't interfering with the press and the fourth one is that they are supposed to negotiate with the press ahead of time. go to the press and say we need this information from you. here's why and have a negotiation over how broad it is. what happens here is that the

regulations were just ignored. they said we follow it to the letter, but this is really an unprecedented action. they weren't just individual reporters' lines. they were -- they were the bureau, the north beer row. the washington bureau. in those bureaus, 100 or more ap reporters -- about who they were calling -- relating to all their stories. >> phone lines, somebody who's working for example in my office, we've governor a number of people who work in my office, you can get to either one of us. so, you're saying that hundreds of reporters were using these lines? >> my understanding is that there were 100 or more in the bureau that had their lines taken.

>> so anybody using their desk. >> not all the lines. there are certain lines, but -- it wasn't just targeted for specific individuals. that's number one. the other thing you highlighted was the invading this requirement of prior notice. why is this important? because if prior notice had been given, it's not just negotiations, but it affords the opportunity -- we think they're going too far and you have an independent arbiter can evaluate who can arbitrate that. say they're entitled to, but they should only do it if it would undermine the integrity of the investigation and it's really hard pressed. we would like an explanation from the department of justice. how notifying the ap that they needed phone records with respect to a publicly disclosed investigation over facts that happened a year ago would undermine it. >> they have asserted they were within the bounds of all of these justice department regulations in terms of it being

a last resort, they said they did more than 500 interviews. reviewed thousands of documents before they decided no, they really, really needed to look at these ap reporters phone records. obviously, you don't find that persuasive enough. do you want more of an explanation or some further kind of recourse? >> two things. just on that, it's not necessarily we don't take them at their word. but a judge should be reviewing that. they shouldn't decide for themselves. >> without a national media shield law, that's not -- >> if they had been given notice -- there was a case involving a "new york times" reporter and judy miller in 2001 where there was an allegation they had sent -- tipped off an islamist group about a raid and wanted to know how that happened. they went to the "new york times" and said we need your

phone records. they got a court to review them. that whole process was short-circuited here. >> when do you think it will be here? >> first, we want an explanation and information. we would like to know from the justice department what else they got from the ap reporters. they have to expose their fate, subpoena. there is nothing in these regs. they were passed after watergate. nothing in the regulations requires the department of justice to disclose if they sought e-mail, if they did other sorts of investigating on these reporters. so, there are a number of things we would like to know and we can assess what our recourse might be and we would also hope -- >> and i don't know how long the

long run is, but in the long run in this country, your side wins these fights. >> i hope you're right. >> thank you for helping us sift through this. i appreciate it. we'll be right back. ♪ [ male announcer ] from the way the bristles move to the way they clean, once you try an oral-b deep sweep power brush, you'll never go back to a regular manual brush.

its three cleaning zones with dynamic power bristles reach between teeth with more brush movements to remove up to 100% more plaque than a regular manual brush. and even 76% more plaque than sonicare flexcare in hard to reach areas. oral-b deep sweep 5000 power brush.

here's what things are like now in the nation's capitol. here's now you know we're in the middle of a crazy news cycle.

this is what it looked like at 1:30 p.m. eastern time. it seems like it's too much news to cover. not enough space on the tv screen. check out the banner at the bottom. left, d.o.g. briefing. right, white house briefing. this is news overload. on the left, attorney general eric holder just starting his press conference about the seizure of ap phone records while jay carney is trying to put out another fire entirely. >> if we're seeing some of these reports about specific targeting and actions taken by personnel within the irs turns out to be true, then people should be held accountable. >> jay carney there referencing the other big scandal besides the ap thing, the scandal

involving irs and friday, we first started getting reports of alleged wrong doing of the irs, specifically on how it came to how acts were evaluating different groups applying for tax exempt status. that they singled out group conservative groups, flagging scrutiny on their applications. since then, there's been some indication that the irs official who first apologized on friday also had tried to fix this problem last year. also, the white house has denied any knowledge of what was going in the irs at the irs on this issue. the acting commissioner of the irs appears to have been briefed on the problem before fielding questions, but when members of congress asked him about it, he did not mention he knew there was a problem even though the irs said there was a problem and now tonight, you finally get the inspector general's report that

purports to explain what happened. one of the questions, whose idea this was any way. officials stated the criteria were not influenced by any organization outside the irs. within the last hour, president obama has released a statement calling the report's findings quote, intolerable and inexcusable. he said he directed his treasury secretary to hold these responsible for these failures accountable to make sure each of the inspector general's recommendations are -- so that such conduct never happens again. says the irs must apply the law in a fair way. this report shows that some of its employees failed that test. joining us now is michael isakoff, nbc news investigative correspondent. mike, thanks for being here. >> great to be with you again.

>> one of the things i wanted to ask you about, this irs criteria for a target. how do target scrutiny for these applications a "b.o.l.o.," an acronym for be on the lookout. >> that was one of the most delicious parts of the report in reading it. when the fbi issues them for terrorists or bank robbers, i was not aware until this all these disclosures that the irs issues its own, in this case, organizations with names with the tea party in it, but it's pretty chilling to learn that the irs would be issues bolos which really is a form of profiling. so, that was a bit troubling even if it was a little amusing.

but beyond that, the report, you cut through all the bureaucratic language and it's pretty blistering. the people who did this in cincinnati, the determinations unit, didn't even understand what the rules were for tax exempt organizations. the report says that in multiple passages and these are the people making these decisions. the inappropriate criteria lasts for 18 months. the high level officials become aware of this and try to change the criteria, they're being asked multiple questions by members of congress and they don't reveal anything about the problems that are, this were going on and i think that's where the first serious problem's going to be.

you're going to see congressional committees saying we wrote you letters about this. you wrote us back and there's like three or four letter from the acting commissioner talking about the lengthy and pain staking process the irs uses for evaluating these sort of applications and there's not a whiff of a mention we've got a serious problem on our hands. >> even though those officials answering those questions we know had been briefed on this problem happening at the lower level in the agency, right? >> exactly and you highlighted the part that the white house well, the department did this in

cincinnati on their own, but the idea that government bureaucrats operate is a vacuum without knowledge of where the political winds are blowing is a myth. we thought multiple occasions about if war when cia was shaping intelligence what the white house wanted to hear. now, in this case, i'm not equating the two, but there is a parallel. everybody who after citizens united, a lot of people were concerned about the abuse of 501c4s and those organizations to pump big money into the electoral process. the president denounced it. leading democrats in congress announced it, then after the 2010 election, these bureaucrats in cincinnati decided they're going to target the tea party. now, they targeted the wrong people. there were much bigger abusers of the 501c4, but it's hard to divorce that from the larger political winds that were blowing at the time. >> absolutely and had they, had they themselves made a decision

that was overtly nonpartisan and non-idealogical, nobody would be peeping about this. really, but the fact they put this spin on it themselves, yeah, this isn't over. michael isakoff, thank you very much. one of the things to watch for tomorrow, obviously, the big bottom line here is that none of these groups that got targeted actually got their applications denied, one of the things in the report is that although they didn't get denied, they may have been delayed. was this a way to keep people out of the political process in a way they would have otherwise been able to be. watch for that tomorrow. we'll be right back.

the obama administration is having a terrible week, but how does this rank among other presidents terrible weeks? dan rather is here tonight ch that's next. [ female announcer ] crest + scope gives you the ultimate in fresh breath. so you have the courage to jump in... ♪ or make sparks fly. it's the only toothpaste that combines

the freshness of scope with the cleaning power of crest. life opens up when you do.

for as long as there has been a federal organization that collects taxes, there have been people claiming that organization is going after them for political reasons. often, those people have been right. under jfk, 18 right wing organizations selected for special audits, although there was no evidence of tax violation. under nixon, it was the special services staff set up to target the president's enemies and groups on the left. the fbi in the 1960s using the irs as a weapon to harass and try to discredit martin luther king jr.

in the late 1960s, the program to disrupt and neutralize groups on the left. the fbi directing the irs to investigate individual activists on tax grounds, "time" magazine today recounting how the fbi picked out one college professor explaining that the audit should be timed specifically to be a quote distraction during the critical period when he is engaged in meetings and plans for the democratic national convention that year in chicago. as we talked about on last night's show, the irs under george w. bush, went after one major liberal church threatening its tax status while apparently ignoring the same or greater levels of political activity. in 2004, the naacp saw its tax status threatened by the irs on

the basis of them criticizing the presidency of george w. bush. president obama says he wants to treasury secretary to hold accountable groups to extra scrutiny and delays in their applications to the irs for tax exempt status. is it appropriate to contextual -- contextualize this scandal of using that agency and others as a tool of clear political warfare or is this something else? joining us now is dan rather. his latest program is called operation streamline and it airs tonight at 11:00 p.m. eastern. thank you for being here. >> always a pleasure to be here. >> what is your big picture perspective on how big this scandal is and how it relates to

the overt uses of the irs for political aims? >> first of all, as you laid out administrations have been doing this for many, many years, both republican and democratic administrations, but not all cases are are the same. in the case of the nixon administration, it was the president himself, it was proven, no doubt about it, who said go after these people on their taxes. >> he's on tape saying it. >> now, that's a far cry from where we are today. there is no proof that anybody at the white house, never mind the president himself, has been involved in this in the slightest. however, there needs to be, i now think there will be, a long investigation into this case and there are those who believe you know, somebody at the white house must have winked at somebody at the irs. if, if, it reaches the level of even a mid level over the obama administration, it's serious trouble for him.

it's a benefit to the republicans because they can keep him on the defensive. but i think in the overall picture, what we have right now is an embarrassment for president obama and a warning to him, if you will. you know what? you've got to be really careful up and down the line because even small things such as this and make no mistake about it, it was no small thing to target one side of the political spectrum. with say we're going to make things difficult particularly in this election year. is it a case of people down the line and even those people involved? now, obviously, many republicans and some who are not think it had to be other people involved. what president obama needs, he doesn't need me to tell you, but he needs an immediate, really fast, but completely thorough investigation into this.

and however bad the news is, put it out. >> what is the character of an investigation like that? does he name somebody from outside the administration? does he count on as his remarks indicated tonight, directing the secretary of the treasury department to make sure to hold those responsible for these failures? does he need to do, does he need to direct that something else happened that might not otherwise happen in the normal course? >> my personal opinion, yes, there would be pressure for him to do that. if not a special prosecutor, some special investigator. you're making some of the right moves. the republicans are very good at this. you remember when you remember

when -- all over the clinton administration. the president himself and his actions, they're playing by that same playbook now. benghazi, this is by the play book and again, as long as there's something to it, even if it turns out to be a few low level people who didn't do what they were supposed to do, it's very serious. you have to have integrity. if you don't have that integrity, people lose trust in government as a whole. >> you have to act decisively to put a stop to it. on the ap story, we are discussing earlier, you have some experience of being gone after by an administration because of your reporting. didn't you get sort of nixon

burglarized during the nixon presidency? >> yes, he did. long story, but turned out i didn't know at the time our home was burglarized by people who turned out to be part of the notorious plumbers operation. it was a long time figuring out who did it. there are those to this day said no, it wasn't really that, but it was. our home was broken into it, but this became common during the nixon administration. doctor's offices were broken into it to get information, tapping telephone lines. very common. and when people say well, watergate wasn't that big a deal. watergate is shorthand for a widespread criminal conspiracy led by the president of the united states himself, which more than 40 people eventually served hard time. so people who don't like the hard facts of history about the

nixon administration, every time some scandal happens, well, this is watergate, quite honestly, don't know what they're talking about. >> having you here is the best perspective i get. thanks for being here. >> thank you. >> dan rather's latest program is called operation streamline and airs tonight at 11:00 p.m. on axs. if you are counting at home, a very important number is now up to 12. big news for minnesota. straight ahead. [ male announcer ] away... [ children laughing ] ♪ ...is the smell of salt in the air. ♪ it's the sound a seashell makes. [ seagulls calling ] away...is a place that's beyond your imagination, yet well within your means. find your away. for a dealer and the rv that's right for you, visit gorving.com.

as soon as you feel it,v weigh you down?or you, try miralax. it works differently than other laxatives. it draws water into your colon to unblock your system naturally. don't wait to feel great. miralax. take the miralax pledge to feel better sooner. get a reward like a beauty treatment, a dance class or a $5 gift card with purchase of a specially marked pack. go to miralax.com for details.

[growl] we used to live with a bear. we'd always have to go everywhere with it. get in the front. we drive. it was so embarrasing that we just wanted to say, well, go away. shoo bear. but we can't really tell bears what to do. moooooommmmmm!!! then one day, it was just gone. mom!

[announcer] you are how you sleep. tempur-pedic. on december 9th, 1974, minnesota state senator allen spear came out on the front page of the minneapolis star tribune. it read 37-year-old freshman member of the minnesota senate, a dfler. afro-american history. he has a doctorate from yale, has a book on the chicago black ghetto. he has long been active in civil rights and peace causes, ranked as the most liberal state senator, americans for democratic action survey. he is also a homosexual and as of today does not care who knows it. he made history as one of the first openly elected gay officials in this country, that

was 1974 that front page story. he ended up serving in the senate, minnesota had landmark achievements in gay rights, sweeping anti-discrimination statute passed in 1993. although they had some landmark achievements as a state, minnesota never got around to recognizing marriage equality. in the mid term elections in 2010, it was the republican party that took control of both chambers of the minnesota legislature for the first time in 40 years. with their new found power, minnesota republicans put on the ballot state constitutional amendment to doubly, triply ban gay marriage, even though it wasn't legal there anyway. republicans wanted a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and put it on the ballot, then when it went for statewide vote in november last year, it lost. that had never happened before ever. 31 states voted on amendments like that, and all 31 voted against marriage equality, until that all changed this past

november. minnesotans made history when they voted no not to change the state constitution to ban equal marriage rights. at the same time, on the same election day, minnesota voted to return control of both houses of their legislature to the democratic party, the dfl. and the democrats in minnesota decided that vote where the state said no to banning equal rights, that vote deserved another vote. so beyond just not banning same-sex marriage, the state decided should legalize same-sex marriage. last thursday, the minnesota house took up the question, passed by a surprisingly comfortable margin, even a handful of republicans voted yes. that sent it to the state senate. yesterday with a packed rotunda for what everybody anticipated to be a historic day, minnesota state senate debated and voted. and those that supported equal marriage rights did better than anybody expected. >> members in my humble

judgment, this is indeed the civil rights issue of our generation. we are on the cusp of making historic decision of what civil rights we will live with, what kind of society we live in. >> vote yes on the first and 14th amendment. i stand here quite honestly more uncertain of my future in this place than i have ever been. when i walk out of the chamber today, but when i walk out of the chamber today i am absolutely certain i'm standing on the side of individual liberty. >> members, please vote yes. vote yes for freedom. vote yes for family, for commitment, for responsibility, for dignity. vote yes for love. >> that was democratic state

senator scott dibble, openly gay member of legislature, now holds the same senate seat once held by allan spear. he wore his pin in tribute. it passed yesterday by 37-30 vote. lots of votes to spare, even some republicans. that makes minnesota the 12th state in the country to recognize marriage equality and the third state to do so just this month. minnesota's democratic governor mark dayton signed that bill into law this afternoon a few hours ago on the steps of the state capital, big historic day in minnesota. long time coming for groups that couldn't be married before, they can start being married august 1st, the day it goes into effect.

i have some breaking news tonight. one week ago you'll remember the lieutenant colonel who the u.s.

air force put in charge of the air force's sexual assault prevention office was himself arrested and accused of sexual battery. well, now a week later a second u.s. service member assigned to military sexual assault prevention is being investigated for sexual misconduct, a u.s. army sergeant first class from fort hood assigned as equal opportunity adviser and sexual harassment assault response prevention program coordinator. under investigation for pandering, abusive sexual contact, maltreatment of subordinates. a defense official telling nbc news that this sergeant first class is being investigated for forcing at least one subordinate soldier into prostitution and for sexual assaulting two other soldiers. he hasn't been charged, they're not releasing the identity. this is just breaking tonight.

yet another u.s. soldier in this case in a leadership position in sexual assault prevention himself under investigation tonight for sexual assault. unbelievable. do you believe this week? good wednesday morning. right now on "first look," washington awash in controversy, surrounding the irs' targeting of conservative groups, the benghazi investigation, and the attorney general's remarks about the a.p. phone records subpoena. >> i have to say this is among if not the most serious leaks i've ever seen. it put the american people at risk. and that is not hyperbole. >> reaction from across the country to angelina jolie's revelation of a double mastectomy. the u.s. embassy employee