thank you doctor. turn around. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start tonight with this. today was the second day of the obama offensive. yesterday he fired the head of the irs and today he's tossing off comparisons to nixon. he said he's determined to get things fixed out there. well, a question. will he be satisfied if there are no more firings at the internal revenue service? will he let the people who did the political targeting keep their jobs? and if so, will he call that fixing things? second question. what lessons did the person learn from all this? is he going to change the way he runs things?

is he going to insist he, the president, is told what's going on, or does he want inspectors general and his own attorney general to only let him know what's happening by what he reads in the newspaper? in other words, what is leaked to people who write what's in the newspaper. and finally, what does the president think of the reince priebus charge that he, personally, barack obama, inspired the the people over there at the irs to target the tea party? jay carney is the white house press secretary. jay, thanks so much for coming on. it's a hot time of the year for everybody. especially you. what do you make of this irs thing? i mean, i believe, i'll just put my cards on the table, if the american people know that the same people that did this thing targeting the tea party people over there and the patriot groups are still there a year from now, they're not going to believe it's been cleaned up. what's the president's view? >> well, chris, as you heard from the president, both last night and again today, he has taken direct action in response to the report issued by the inspector general. secretary lew asked for and

accepted the resignation of the acting irs commissioner. the president is nominating or putting forward a new acting irs commissioner. he is instructing everyone involved in this to make sure we get all of the facts that underlie the i.g. report. he's made clear that the behavior, the conduct documented in that report is absolutely inappropriate. it is wrong. and it undermines the confidence that the american people need to have that the irs is neutral and fair in the way that it applies our tax laws. so, you know, he is outraged by this. you've heard him say that. and i can tell you i know it's true. and, you know, he, as he said today, when his job as chief executive, as the president of the united states, is to take action when problems are discovered. to fix those problems. and that's what he's going to

do. >> yes, but outrage is good. the words are good. getting rid of that guy, miller, is good, because it was appropriate for him to retire, resign. is he going to be satisfied, this president, with one head? or doesn't he -- you know the public relations here. if the american people are filling out their taxes next year, know the irs is still packed with the same people, it's a problem. isn't it? or is it? >> well, chris, i mean, if you're suggesting that i should randomly fire people now -- >> no, will he be happy if he doesn't fire people? >> we need to get all of the facts, and he has made clear that people who are responsible for failures will be held accountable. he will demand it. we need all the facts. we have the i.g.'s report. >> i understood that's the requirement, but in the end, we got some news here, jay. just turns out as we're speaking here, you may already know this, according to congressional sources the second top irs official has announced plans to leave the agency. an eternal irs memo says joseph grant, tax exempt and government entities division, will retire june 3rd.

grant oversaw the irs division that apparently targeted tea party groups when they applied for tax exempt status. the progress continues. since this is happening, i can't complain about something that's happening. let me ask you about the president's way of running the government. in this case, your legal office was informed generally of some sort of i.g. report a couple weeks ago. you weren't informed at all what was happening at the attorney general's office with regard to his recusal of himself in this subpoenaing of all the records from the "associated press." if this is the way the president operates, getting the news late, or getting it as he says in the newspapers, how can he be an aggressive chief executive? my question. >> chris, i would turn this around. imagine what reporters would be saying and people like you would be saying if the president of the united states and the folks in the white house were being informed of and engaged in on a criminal investigation into a leak that presumably, because it's a leak of classified

information, has to do with a leak that emanated from somewhere within the federal government? that would be viewed as absolutely inappropriate and in past histories of previous administrations beyond inappropriate. it is entirely appropriate that we are not informed of the progress or the methods used by federal prosecutors in criminal investigations. >> yeah. >> we should not. but what the president can say, as he did before, is that he has two dominant interests in issues like these. one, to protect our national security secrets. because the consequences of leaking national security secrets are real and they can, in fact, be deadly. they can engage the lives of americans overseas. "a." "b" he has an overriding interest for the sake of our democracy of the first amendment. freedom of the press. freedom of speech. ensuring that the press is able to pursue investigative journalism freely and to pursue the free flow of information.

in order to provide more protections for the media, he has long supported a media shield law. he is urging the senate and glad to see that the senate is moving forward on senator schumer's reintroduction of a media shield law that is exactly the compromise, or rather the negotiated agreement that this administration led back in 2009 that won the support of media organizations and federal prosecutors. and we need to move forward on that. >> the problem with arguing is, we had a recent administration, the bush administration, w's administration, the president announced there was an investigation of the leaks regarding scooter libby and the rest of those people. that was all conducted in the public light. by the way, how could the president or anybody in the white house imagine this thing was going to be kept secret with "ap" being subpoenaed for all those records? >> it wasn't a question of -- >> -- an effective chief executive. >> chris, i think, again, it's not a question of keeping it secret. it is not, in our view, appropriate for the white house

to be involved in an ongoing criminal investigation. >> not even to know what was going on? okay. >> i would ask you to consider the alternative to that and to, as you know, because you've covered this and been, you know, around here for a long time, you know what past history here tells us about involvement of white houses in criminal investigations led by the justice department. >> you saw what i saw, jay. jon stewart the other night did a wonderful parody of the president time after time after time saying, i heard it in the papers, i read it in the news. learning things other people are learning as they learned it. it seems like to run the united states government is to be ahead of the game. >> chris, can i please just urge you to realize, you know, we're talking about two issues that have to do with investigations or reviews by, you know, an independent inspector general or the criminal, you know, a criminal investigation by the department of justice.

you know, what this president will do is when he finds problems that need to be fixed in the federal government, he acts to fix them. and that's what the american people expect him to do. but what he does not do is interfere in criminal investigations. >> i didn't ask him to. let me ask you, jay, last question. renice priebus, chair of the national republican committee, accused the president of inspiring the misdeeds over at the irs. what do you make of that? >> i think mr. priebus is the head of a political party. we have seen again and again this week and attempts that have largely failed to turn all of this into a partisan fight. i think the republicans have been chagrinned by their failure to turn the benghazi talking points, again, into some sort of political issue. because the facts just don't support their accusations. when it comes to the irs, nobody has been more forthright and clear about his outrage over the conduct that's been reported than the president. and no one has taken action more than the president has taken

action. he'll continue to to so. >> jay, thank you for coming on "hardball." jay carney. bob shrum is democratic strategist. former rnc chair, michael steele, joins us for two points of view. i'm asking the questions here, again. maybe i'm too tough. you think? i don't think so. michael steele, shouldn't the president know things before he reads them in the paper? >> absolutely. i think what i took away from that interview, it's something, again, i think this administration is tone deaf on and it's played itself out. there's a difference between the president being involved in an investigation and the president being informed. nobody is asking the president to get a blow-by-blow of what the attorney general is doing and finding out in an ongoing criminal or other type of investigation. what we would think, though, is that someone from the justice department would inform someone in the white house to inform the president that this is going on and that's where they seem to get muddled in this thing. >> i don't know if, bob, they seem over-lawyered.

they seem -- i mean that. i mean, the fact that the counsel's office had some inkling something was coming from the i.g. back in april. the president didn't know about it until he read about it in the papers on friday. over and over again, remember -- wasn't there a recent administration we used to make fun of for always being surprised? they never knew what was coming? i sense a lack of executive span of control by this president. an uninterest. not a disinterest. but an uninterest in knowing what's going on all through the government agency so that he can be on top of them. either through cabinet conversations. i don't know why eric holder, who's a fine man, a fine attorney general, can't call up the president say, i just recused myself in this investigation, you're going to hear about it soon. go up, bob. your thoughts. >> well, first, in terms of knowing that the i.g. was going to come up with this report on the irs, if they knew it two weeks in advance, had any idea of its content, it would be inexplicable to me that that wasn't communicated to the president of the united states.

there's nothing inappropriate about that. i tend to agree with jay carney that as you go down these individual cases in the justice department, this is just one of many cases. we don't know whether the cases are going on there. checking in with the white house, checking in with the white house staff, announcing that the attorney general's recusing himself, giving the reason. i think you begin to get into the interstities of the investigation. >> kennedy didn't say i'm pulling myself out of the investigation because it involves you. he wouldn't tell him? >> first of all, i don't think there was such an investigation, number one. >> let's just speculate a little bit here. >> i don't think it was. number two, i think in the world we live in after richard nixon and after watergate, the justice department and the white house have to be very careful about how they communicate. they communicate in terms of policy. the president should not be in the middle of these cases. the i.g. case -- >> nobody said -- you're overstating -- by the way, bob,

let me throw you a minnow. i think you can handle this. you're going to swallow this once and it's going to be gone. the president has been accused of using the word tea bagger. that's being used by reince priebus, the majesty running the rnc. as how he inspired the irs. your reaction? >> i think it's ridiculous. i mean, he tweeted out, look, marco rubio demanded that the head of the irs be fired. the guy had already resigned. he was a bush appointee. president fires the acting head of the irs. priebus tweets out it's a scapegoat. then he says the president created the culture that made this happen. >> right. >> look, if anybody created a sulfurous culture, it's the tea party and people who went after the president. >> sulfurous. we got that. >> i appreciate the talking point. >> what do you think of reince priebus? is reince priebus right that the

president inspired the misbehavior? >> i don't. i don't think you can make that claim, to be honest. look, i'm not a fan of what this president has done on the policy side and the like, but, you know, again, i think republicans have to keep their heads square to the issues in front of them and not do the hyperbole that puts on the borderline on being ridiculous. >> you know what, you just queued up our next segment. we're going to talk about overdoing it like the house republicans did with clinton. they tried to impeach him. the first time in history, a party out of power has lost a six-year election. you're a loyalist. coming up, republicans try to kill the obama administration in its crib. let's face it, that's what mcconnell was trying to do. now some are calling for impeachment? they're calling him tyrannical. they're playing on the side to destroy health care. they're really out to get the guy. they can't think of what to get him on yet. this is an interesting group here.

plus, that sound you hear is the air coming out of the benghazi balloon. tonight, what we really learned about the scandal, which it isn't a scandal. also, dick cheney, how you say it, and donald rumsfeld, his come padre, accused president obama of pull a fast one. think about it. they should talk. they had a war under their belt. jon stewart takes on the men who brought you the war in iraq. let me finish tonight with the two parties in this country. one party is trying to do something, and the other party sits around cheering for its disaster. this is "hardball." the place for politics.

this is great. we have new polling data on the 2016 presidential race from ppp. one side, it's a tight field. the other, it's a runaway. let's start with the republicans. it's virtually a four-way tie there. marco rubio, senator from florida, at 16 points. jeb bush and chris christie at 15%. rand paul at 14%. paul ryan and ted cruz in single digits. by the way, the big mover among

those rs is rand paul. his support has doubled over the past six months. he's moving up. now to the democrats where hillary clinton is up by 50 points. 5-0. over vice president joe biden. 63% to 13% for biden. andrew cuomo. mark warner. elizabeth warren. she's showing up. martin o'malley. all in low, very low single digits. we're going to look at general election matchups later in the hour. that's going to be fun to see how the republicans do against hillary, i guess. we'll be right back.

people may be starting to use the "i" word before too long. >> oh, okay. the "i" word meaning impeachment? >> yeah. >> is that within the realm of possibilities? i would say yes. i'm not willing to take that off the table. >> if you had watergate and iran/contra together and multiply it times maybe ten or so, you're going to get in the zone of what benghazi is. >> holy [ bleep ]. >> welcome back to "hardball." as you saw in that clip of republicans there, they're having a fiesta with all the

issues facing the obama administration. some have even become punch lines for comedians like jon stewart. and if you tally up the trio of controversies facing the team obama, gop leaders have called for resignations, firings, jail time. there's even some nasty talk of impeachment out there. we've heard comparisons to nixon, watergate and iran/contra. president obama was asked today about how he fell about those comparisons particularly to the word nixon. here's what he said. >> how do you feel about comparisons by some of your critics of this week's scandals to those that happened under the nixon administration? >> well, i'll let you guys engage in those comparisons, and you can go ahead and read the history, i think, and draw your own conclusions. >> well, could all this wild talk, and i think it is wild talk, backfire on the gop, on the republicans? chris cillizza writes in the "washington post," "there are real concerns within the republican establishment that members of their party won't

look before they leap when it comes to the right's strategic path forward, taking a major political opportunity and blowing it, a al the impeachment of president bill clinton in the late 1990s." joining me, chris cillizza, msnbc political analyst with the "washington post." nia-malika henderson also with the "washington post." you two young folks, i have to say, i think about clinton, nobody remembers, chris, he was impeached. they remember how popular he was. he must be the most popular impeached president in history. people have almost put an asterisk next to that impeachment because they think it was purely partisan now, maybe an us pleasant letter may have been a more appropriate action by the house in those days. we don't like your monica thing, but let's move on, would have been better. but this time, these hard cases like inhofe and chaffetz, bachmann. they go right to ten. impeach. is this serious, or just them?

that hard group of people that always go hard right? >> look, i think there are people in both parties who if there's a certain president in the white house who isn't your party, anything he or she does is sort of -- you immediately, as you point out, chris, sort of go to town. here's what i would say. there's a large group of people including people i quote in the story you mention who say the worst thing that we can do here, tom davis, former virginia congressman -- >> he's a smart guy. >> -- i know you had him on the show before. he basically said, this is a political sort of feast for republicans. these series of things. irs, "ap," benghazi. what the republicans shouldn't do is gorge themselves. they have to pace themselves. what that means is don't turn it -- i would say benghazi we're sort of around the bend on this already. don't turn it into a purely political matter. that is, if you're a republican, you think the administration's hiding something. if you're a democrat, you think nothing's wrong. that the irs, in particular, is an issue that does not have to

be turned into that black/white, partisan, republican versus democrat. the more you say things like impeachment, john boehner saying he wants to see people behind bars. the more it turns into that, that very familiar thing that we know happens in washington, left versus right. and that's when you lose in some ways the potency of the issue. >> you know, if i were on their side, i'd focus on an issue that matters to people. the irs. >> yeah. >> this benghazi thing seems off the charts for most people and they don't care about the press. first amendment is for us to fight for. no, it's really -- >> it's true. the media cares the most about the media. >> this thing about -- i was a little tough with jay because that's my job, too. and, okay, fire a couple people at the irs. they're going to have to fire a lot more. the average person that fills out his tax form says, those people, they're still there? that's where i think the mother load is for the republicans. >> make this an entire

narrative. the lesson from benghazi is they politicized that issue way too early. you had mitt romney coming out and saying obama was sympathizing with the attackers. >> did you see the poll on that this week? a quarter of the american people said it's the greatest scandal in american history? >> something like 52% aren't paying any attention at all. >> i know. the 23% jumped off the page at me. >> that's the far right. those are republicans who think this president has been up to something. >> by the way, i just imagine they are the same people who think he's a muslim, he's born somewhere else. >> that's right. i think the republican party will do themselves a disservice if they try to attack this president personally and really -- >> i think that's true. and also it has to be on something -- i'm now lecturing. something that matters to them. like taxes. >> they also have to make an argument. they have to make an argument -- >> did you see this guy on this show this week, this guy, turner? seems like a pleasant enough time. sixth time i said, what are you going after the guy on?

he couldn't tell me. he said, we have to have an investigation to find out what i'm mad about. earlier today, the tea party leaders led a press conference after yesterday's ousting of the irs commissioner. let's see what they said about what the president actually did. he went up and fired a guy. >> your government's targeting you. your government's spying on you and your government is lying to you. >> if the "ap" story has taught anything, it should be to the media that when there is a tyrannical despot, the media will be an early victim. >> someone needs to be imprisoned. someone needs to be prosecuted. >> we also don't want to jump to conclusions. we want to go with the facts lead us. >> she's talking about impeachment there. that was, by the way, to get the persona right, chris cillizza, and nia, that was louie gohmert, with the southern accent. i tell you something, he is a birther. it should not be written

republican under his name, but birther, texas. he believes the president was born in bornio, some place in africa. he hasn't ever been there. he's from over there. we should dismiss the first guy who speaks beyond that. you start with the idea he's an illegal immigrant or something, then you go on to the fact he might have done something wrong. well, if you can get past that first charge, you're with this guy for the ride i think. go ahead, chris. >> i was just going to say, i actually, i was looking down at the monitor because i wanted to make sure it was her. i thought i recognized the voice. i actually think that michele bachmann is the most right there which is this, again, the more -- >> what a standard. >> the more that you -- the more that you say the despot in chief, you know, tyrannical. >> michele bachmann is the voice of reason in the tea party now. >> if you're sort of someone who's paying loose attention to this and see some of that rhetoric, chris, this is what i'm talking about. as soon as you turn it into this is about partisanship, this is about politics as usual, you

take 48% of the country and they're on one side and take about 46%, 47% of the country and they're on the other side. we've learned from the 2012 election that if republicans split things down partisan lines, at least in presidential elections, they tend to lose. the party -- >> you make your point. >> you're right about the irs. you're right about the irs. it absolutely touches everybody's life, but it appeals to independents and democrats who say, well wait a minute, this isn't right. this is not a partisanship -- >> by the way, nobody likes meter maids to start with. nobody likes taxes to start with. let's take a look at charles krauthammer. a very smart guy of the neocon right. he's urging the gop not to overplay its hand right now particularly on benghazi which isn't even existent. let's take a listen to charles. >> the one advice i give to republicans is stop calling it a huge scandal. stop saying it's a watergate. stop saying it's iran/contra. let the facts speak for themselves. have a special committee. the facts will speak for themselves. pile them on.

don't exaggerate. don't run ads about hillary. feeds the narrative of the other side that it's only a political event. it is not. just be quiet and present the facts. >> you know, there's a possibility, although i've been part of the huffing and puffing on this thing, that this could be a good week for the president. for this reason. john boehner, another guy who's pretty smart. goes along with his right wing. he made the mistake this week saying he's going to build the rest of his career on benghazi. there's nothing there, mr. speaker. >> this looks like it was a squabble between the cia and state department and they were trying to tie it obviously to hillary clinton. i don't think anyone's going to listen to -- >> you mean our presidential elections don't turn on squabbles between the cia and state -- i'm kidding. they don't. >> i don't think anybody's going to listen to charles krauthammer. it looks like he and bill kristol are singing from the same prayer book. >> by the way, i'm getting a lot of mail from people wondering where you've been lately. thank you for coming back. nia-malika henderson. chris cillizza, you're greatly valued. >> thank you, chris. >> you are.

you young people think like i do and know all this stuff so fast. took me years to learn it. dick cheney -- there's a name for you. cheney. donald rumsfeld. talking about how this administration is not telling the truth. excuse me. dick cheney, donald rumsfeld. anyway, jon stewart spots the obvious. he's always good at this. this is "hardball." the place for politics. this is america.

we don't let frequent heartburn come between us and what we love. so if you're one of them people who gets heartburn and then treats day after day... block the acid with prilosec otc and don't get heartburn in the first place! [ male announcer ] one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn. and don't get heartburn in the first place! as soon as you feelon it, 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. woman: what do you mean, homeowners insurance doesn't cover floods? [ heart rate increases ] man: a few inches of water caused all this? [ heart rate increases ] woman #2: but i don't even live near the water. what you don't know about flood insurance may shock you -- including the fact that a preferred risk policy starts as low as $129 a year.

for an agent, call the number that appears on your screen. ha! back to "hardball." now to the sideshow. as the white house continues to face republican blunder buses over benghazi, we've seen the return of a couple of blokes who should best keep their heads down on the topic of national security. >> i can't imagine how a person could stand up there when everyone involved knew it was a terrorist attack. it was the anniversary of 9/11.

the idea that it was somehow related to a youtube video and that that narrative kept being promoted, i suppose because it fit their hopes and what they wanted to be the case. >> they were always on, locked and loaded ready to go on 9/11. we have specially trained units that practice this. they're very good at it. and they're chomping at the bit to go. >> well, jon stewart entered the fray. >> you believe the obama administration's promoting a narrative? not because it's real but because it fits their hopes and what they want to be the case? you? senior wmd mcgillicuddy? after the lines you told, you don't get to doubt anyone's credibility. if a baseball breaks your window and your grandkid walks to the door with a baseball bat and tells you zack and cody from "the suite life" did it while they were playing a game with

sponge bob, you just have to [ bleep ] choke that down. guess what? history didn't start friday. and obama administration transgressions don't wipe away yours which are many. it's like this. that's mike tyson. he doesn't get to make fun of someone's tattoo. up next, the white house release of those e-mails last night really let the air out of the republicans' benghazi balloon, if you will. and what we know now about the scandal that never was a scandal. you're watching "hardball." the place for politics.

>> six people are dead in the town of granbury, texas, after a tornado packing 200 mile-an-hour winds, much of the area is devastated. >> and the powerball jackpot continues to climb. it's now $550 million. the next drawing is on saturday. it's back to "hardball." welcome back to "hardball." republicans have hoped to turn benghazi into a grade-a scandal the likes of watergate and iran/contra. here's senator jim inhofe with maybe a slight hyperbole. >> 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 on november 28th on fox, is

going to go down as the most serious, most egregious cover-up in american history. >> well, and a man who no one should be listening to when it comes to national security controversies, dick cheney, here he is. >> i think it's one of the worst incidents since, frankly, that i can recall in my career. if they told the truth about benghazi, that it was a terrorist attack by an al qaeda affiliated group, it would have destroyed the false image of the basis of this campaign for re-election. they lied. they claimed it was because of a demonstration video so they wouldn't have to admit it was really all about they're incompetent. >> sorry, cheney, but we have to. the republicans were hoping to find a massive cover-up with benghazi. the truth is, it seems a benign issue here. last night the white house released 100 pages of e-mails relating to how the famous talking points were put together. far from the nefarious effort to mislead the public, the e-mails showcase a bureaucratic back and

forth between various agencies. catch this. "perhaps as a result of the afternoon teleconference, a number of agencies have been looped into the white house, cleared quickly, but state has major concerns. the bureau cleared with a few comments but asked the justice which would handle any criminal prosecution be brought in." all those government agencies. justice, state, the cia, wanted a piece of this conversation which was going to make it on "meet the press" that sunday. in other words, everyone wanted a role in crafting those talking points. the republican talk of a cover-up is just that. will they stop saying it's a cover-up? what do you think? michael crowley is deputy bureau chief for "time." jonathan is national security and intelligence correspondent for the mcclatchy papers. when you look at this from a "time" magazine perspective. what is the benghazi scandal? is there one? >> no, i think in historical terms it's a flap.

it's a little bit of a sideshow. it's interesting, and, you know, it gets -- the most interesting part to me is the substantive questions about our intervention in libya and what's happening with al qaeda in north africa. when you look at the things washington is talking about at the end of the day, i see a bureaucratic turf war. i see cia and state pointing the finger at each other for who dropped the ball on the security in that compound. i don't see a white house cover-up. by the way, to the point former vice president cheney made, you know, if they were trying to tell a lie about the video and demonstrations, it lasted three days. voters went to the polls knowing there had been an al qaeda affiliated attack there. what was covered up? a cover-up that lasted 72 hours. a pretty inept one. i don't see scandal there. >> the harm done was to romney by a tenth of a point. >> romney had an issue to hit obama with because he was accusing him with a cover-up. >> we all remember that debate. what do you think, jonathan,

about the way this thing developed yesterday with the unloading last night of all those e-mails? >> e-mails came in the very beginning of the packet. it was an e-mail from the general counsel of the cia who points out to everybody, this is when the consideration and the editing process is still going on inside the cia, that there's a standing order from the national security council, from the justice department, from the fbi, that no one in any assessment should attribute blame to this thing because it could jeopardize the investigation, even internally within the government. so it doesn't matter what went on, i believe, in the subsequent toing and froing. this is a major administrative process. the fact is, that stuff had to come out. there was an order to take that stuff out, not even put it out even within the government. that's what happened. >> the two items that had to go out was the reference to anshar al sharia. right?

that was a decision by the cia, not by hillary clinton and not by the white house? >> absolutely. in fact, the first reference to the fact that there were al qaeda linked people in that crowd came out at the orders of the cia general counsel. even more critical, i believe, look, the heart of the republican charge has been this idea that the administration, the white house, was going on and on and on, substituted the fact that they knew there was some kind of organized attack for an attack that came out of a demonstration that never happened. we know that the cia office of terrorism assessment put that into the very first talking point draft that they put together and that lasted the entire way through the process. and so the idea that it was the white house that did this just goes up in smoke. >> i thought it was well represented right there by you, sir. even after the release of the e-mails, senator lindsey graham who's been a fire eater on this issue continued to insist there was something more to the story. they never know what it is, but

there's always something more. here he is keeping it up. lindsey graham. >> you don't have to be sherlock holmes to figure this out. the story of benghazi, if accurately reported, would undercut the narrative bin laden's dead, and they manipulated the evidence to help them. >> you and your colleagues reported this week in the month before the attack, ambassador chris stevens twice said no to military offers of more security in benghazi. the offers came from the head of the u.s. africa command. "army general carter ham phoned stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the u.s. military. stevens told ham it did not, the officials said. weeks later ham, again, offered additional military assets and stevens, again, said no." what a story you've got there, jonathan. because that is, to me, the meat and potatoes. the heart and soul of this question. did somebody do something wrong deliberately or not that may have caused the life of a guy everybody liked and his

colleagues? your thoughts now given this new information that chris stevens, the ambassador, himself, said i don't want any more military personnel at this point. >> this is a really interesting story. we don't know why ambassador stevens turned it down. it may very well be he wasn't authorized to be able to accept this offer from general ham, that this had to actually go through the bureaucracy and the other thing being that military personnel who are used to protect embassies are not used to protect the personnel of the embassy, the ambassador. they're there to protect classified documents and classified -- other classified materials. the state department provides the personnel for guarding the ambassador. the other thing that this points out -- >> you mean when we see the marines stationed in their dressed uniforms many cases at an embassy overseas, they're there to protect the documents, not the personnel? >> absolutely. and look, in order for -- stevens couldn't accept this offer. i mean, i don't think he could. putting uniformed military in a

foreign country requires the approval of that foreign country's government. as messed up as the libyan government was at that point, they just couldn't say yes, give us more, give us a military protection. >> stevens, one of his calling cards was his relationships on the ground. his willingness to get out and get to know people. he wanted -- >> a peace corps guy. >> he was there to transform that compound in part to this open space. they had some name like an american space. there was going to be a symbol of american/libyan cooperation. >> consulate services. >> that's right. sort of educational types of things. at the end of the day, chris, the enduring mystery here is why did he go to a danger zone on the most dangerous day of the year when there were such concerns about security? i still find that kind of puzzling. it may be that he just didn't want to be cowed. but he did walk into a very dangerous situation. i've heard other diplomats they find it puzzling he took that risk. >> maybe he's a courageous guy. >> there's another big mystery here. and that is the degree to which

the cia presence in benghazi imposed itself on the security decisions that chris stevens was in charge of. look, there were seven american diplomats in benghazi including the ambassador, 30 cia officers and contractors. the fact there was this major cia presence, would have impinged on, i believe, the ability of the ambassador to call his own security decisions. >> sure. why did he want to put a flag up over the cia operation? thank you, michael crowley. thank you, great reporting, jonathan. we're going to be right back after this. to treat my low testosterone, i did my research. my doctor and i went with axiron, the only underarm low t treatment. axiron can restore t levels to normal in about 2 weeks in most men. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18 or men with prostate or breast cancer. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied

as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur. report these symptoms to your doctor. tell your doctor about all medical conditions and medications. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer; worsening prostate symptoms; decreased sperm count; ankle, feet or body swelling; enlarged or painful breasts; problems breathing while sleeping; and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness or irritation where applied, increased red blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and increase in psa. ask your doctor about the only underarm low t treatment, axiron. 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. well here it is. let's look at potential general election matchups for 2016. this is in the ppp poll. in a matchup between hillary clinton, the top democrat in the field against marco rubio, the leading republican. it's clinton. this isn't wide. 51%-41%. it's the same score between hillary and rand paul. rand paul gets 41% against hillary. the most popular politician in the country. don't think this country ain't divided. again, against chris christie, a much closer race. hillary by three. 47%-44%. by the way, hillary's name is 100% known. by the way, joe biden has a slight lead over rubio and paul but trails christie by nine. interesting. both from the delaware valley.

angie's list is essential. i automatically go there. at angie's list, you'll find reviews on everything from home repair to healthcare written by people just like you. if you want to save yourself time and avoid a hassle, go to angie's list. at angie's list, you'll find the right person to do the job you need. and you'll find the right person quickly and easily. i'm busy, busy, busy, busy. thank goodness for angie's list. from roofers to plumbers to dentists and more, angie's list -- reviews you can trust. oh, angie? i have her on speed dial.

as soon as you feel it, weigh you down? 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. welcome back to hardball. republicans are looking to get every bit of political mileage they can out of the irs scandal and they'll never let up on obama care. today house republicans are making their 37th -- that's 37 times -- to repeal the health care law. like all the times before it, it is going to fail. we have an expert here, a special advisor to the obama administration formulating for the affordable health care act. he he wrote a new book, "brothers emanuel." i really want to read that book. one is the great hollywood agent ari emanuel who stars in a movie, and rahm emanuel is mayor

of chicago. what is it like to have brothers like that? does your mom think you're the intellectual? >> the doctor in the family. that's the key. >> that's a permanent job. let me ask you about -- i smell a rat. i think the republicans would like to spread the word out there that obama care isn't good for you and therefore sort of upchuck it. if it comes to you, do whatever you got to do. if you're a barber, you got two seats, each guy makes 25 or 30 o year, make it difficult on yourself or the government. >> they're certainly trying to delegitimate the bill and everything with it. the exchanges are going to open -- at least enrollment on october 1st. we'll have three months there for people to get insurance, subsidized by the government. if people don't sign up that's a

big problem. i think they're trying to create enough doubt and confusion to keep those numbers down. >> now i'm going back to my huffing and puffing. is the president a tough enough chief executive to make sure this doesn't happen, that he can push this thing through to successful implementation? >> i think they are working very hard. some of it is going to be on the states, california, colorado and other states that are implementing their own exchanges and then there is a big federal exchange. >> you trust rick scott to do a good job in florida or tom corbett in pennsylvania? these people don't like -- >> well, many of them have said no so the federal is going to do it. hhs has responsibility for a lot of states. all are working hard to make sure the shopping experience is good, that there are a number of good plans. do i think that the president himself said there are going to be hiccups along the way. >> who would you describe the group out there watching right now as benefitting from this bill? >> not so much economically.

people who have diseases and now have guaranteed and can get insurance who have a preexisting condition. that's the one group. >> diabetics. >> people with heart failure, emphysema. now no matter what happens with employment they have a way to get insurance at a reasonable rate. i think that's going to be a key group. we all know that that's something we greatly fear. >> people like my dad who is a pretty conservative republican -- not a crazy guy but he's pretty concerned. he loved medicare. >> of course! did isn't that the biggest fear of the right. once people see they can actually benefit from something from washington they'll fall in love with it. >> that's why i think you see rhetoric going up just before enactment. once this is in place for a couple of years and people are used to it, they'll like it, if you can go on and shop like amazon for health insurance and conclude something in 20 or 30 minutes and you actually like the process, you like your product. i think people -- >> i like you and your brother. let's sell the books. "brothers emanuel." you grew up in a family,

education is very important to your parents. one kid becomes a dancer. right? incredibly. that's rahm. nobody thinks of him as a ballet dancer. you followed the more traditional aspiring role of becoming a doctor. then the other guy, ari, just becomes this natural representative talent in hollywood. >> as i said at my father's 75th birthday, it is good we didn't listen to him. he didn't want me to go into bioethics and ari create his own endeavor agency. >> buy the book. zeke emanuel, the smartest of the three.

let me finish tonight with this. do you know what would you great? having two parties in this country trying to do good, do the things the country needs to do. we don't. we have one party. the president is trying to improve our health care, trying to protect the country, trying to improve and strengthen the way we let people become part of our country. we have another party, most of it sitting around cheering for disaster. dozen or so of its members lighting fires igniting anger at the very idea of government. i can not remember a time when one of our political parties was so overwhelmed by the negative, nasty news conference, over the top indictment, obsession with investigation. republican party of washington today is a party of presidential

destruction an any means to achieve it. it doesn't want powers, it wants as much as it wants the other party, the president's party, to stop having it. it doesn't so much want the white house, try to think of someone they honestly want to see there as it wants to imagine that barack obama isn't really president after all. that is their dream, not doing something but finding a way they can achieve their nirvana. no president obama. no, no, no. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes and thank you for joining us this evening. it was a big day today because washington has a case of scandal fever. today president obama showed how he plans to dole out the medicine. plus, last night our guest told us what we can expect in th