conversation. i'm se cupp. there's no debating this. an underdog gets on broadway's best. but in this day and age, are we all just stuck watching the same old show? here on "the cycle" we're always rewriting the script. >> i'm just another guy who sits there day to day in the office, watches what's happening and goes, this is something that's not our place to decide. the public needs to decide whether these programs or policies are right or wrong. >> the hunt is on for 29-year-old edward snowden, the american citizen who handed those classified nsa documents to "the guardian" and "the washington post." snowden calls himself a whistleblower. when he's a hero or villain depends on your point of view. snowden is now in a hong kong

hotel room standing by his claim he's just informing the public about what's going on. he says the government has granted itself power it's not entitled to. they're kept in check by nothing more than policy documents. he also said he didn't turn over additional documents because harming people was not his goal, transparency is. so who is this guy? he's a former cia employee currently working for a defense contractor at the nsa. he earned his high school ged before enlisting in the army after breaking both legs at a training exercise, snowden worked in security at an nsa facility and then moved to computer security. this story has basically been broken by "the guardian" and "the washington post." we begin with dana millbank. a recent poll from it the "new york times" says 20% of americans say the government has gone too far in restricting civil liberties.

26% say it has not gone far enough. 49% say the right balance has been reached. there's a lot of opinions all over the map. i'm curious to hear what you think. has this surveillance become a necessary evil to keep us safe, or has the government gone too far? >> look, i've been talking about this administration and its secrecy since the very beginning here. a lot of people said, well, that's a bunch of reporters whining. i think we now see what the consequences of this are. that is we're shocked to find out that this extraordinary thing was going on. the president and his administration make all kinds of good cases about why this sort of program is necessary. very few good cases about why even the broad contours of it could not have been made public long ago. indeed, you know, when we're wondering who to blame for this leak, a lot of the blame is being directed at mr. snowden, but i would suspect that blame would more be properly placed on

the lawmakers and administration officials who worked so hard to keep such an important thing so secret for so long. >> what does the intelligence community do now? after 9/11 we moved from a need to know basis in the intelligence community to a need to share basis. so lower level folks are able to get access and thus blow up the whole system. so what does the intelligence community do moving forward? >> well, there's going to be a big debate about the use of contractors and in some cases this is done to save money. we see that there are consequences to this. this isn't necessarily a negative or a nefarious consequence that smomething lik that came out into the public view. the administration and previous administration and lawmakers had the opportunity together to talk in public about not ways in which this would compromise national security but to give people an indication that this sort of thing was going on without divulging the details. now it's out there in a way they

did not hope to have exposed. that's going to -- it's causing a backlash. >> dana, we see today the hill has a piece where they said that 14,000 signatures have been collected on a white house petition to pardon edward snowden. what do you think? is he a criminal or a hero based on -- we know what the law says, but what are your thoughts? >> there's not a great track record for the petitions on the white house website. i think if there were, texas would now be an independent nation or perhaps part of mexico. so i'm not sure how far that is going. look, he is by definition a criminal. he broke the law. he will face the consequences. he's done the honorable thing by exposing his identity. the more honorable thing would be to say, yeah, i broke the law for a good purpose. i'm turning myself in to the authorities rather than hang out in a hong kong hotel room. that's his choice. so it is possible to also be a hero and a criminal at the same

time. it just is a shame that the administration and lawmakers in congress who worked equally hard to keep this program secret made this sort of thing necessary rather than revealing less harmful details on their own terms. >> yeah, dana, i'm sure by now you've seen or heard about the fiery exchange between glen greenwald and our own mika on "morning joe" this morning. i was hoping you could comment #zñ said he did not put national security at risk. congress being informed about prism is meaningless if congress can't inform their own constituents. weigh in on some of those points he was making. >> look, he doesn't know and none of us really know what harm this has done to national security. we don't know what we don't know. i guess i'm sounding a little like donald rumsfeld. we just have the very bare boneses of this. we don't know how far it goes.

we can't really have any informed discussion as far as that goes. but that certainly won't stop the discussion on the hill. what is appalling, though, is for these members of congress to be saying, well, i wasn't briefed on this because all of them had access to this investigation. most of them chose not to take it. in fact, many of them like on the house judiciary committee, were actively working to keep details of this program from being made public. >> right. you've been working on a story today, i believe it's posted. you have an update on how the court is going to respond to all this. >> yeah, this is pretty interesting. a new development out this afternoon. a new motion before the court that is directly responsible for this leak basically saying now that the program has been exposed, we should be able to look at the underlying authorizations. of course, most court orders are always secret. that's part of the design.

but they have released orders before, at least on three separate occasions, including some that were previously classified. what you have here is the aclu, which originally sued against some related earlier surveillance programs saying, look, we don't need sources and methods, we don't need names, we don't need anything beyond what's already out there. but looking at what the president said over the weekend and the week prior, they're basically saying we need more details on the legal authorization. that dove tails a little bit with what dana's been talking about with some of the members of congress like senator widen saying there's secret law here and if people knew what the law authorizes as interpreted, people would be more upset. we'll keep an ywhether that's released by the court. >> dana, where did you think this is ultimately going to go? >> hopefully we'll have some sort of sunlight effect here. already we have the administration, the director of national intelligence revealing things they did not want to

reveal before. it sounds like the direction things are going. that would be a very beneficial effect. there's lawmakers like diane feinstein who said, why can't you at least put out a summary of some of these things so we can get some of this out there. they did not see fit to do that. there's plenty of blame to go around here for the congress, the administration, and the judiciary. maybe all of them will start realizing, you know what, we're better off in a democracy if we talk about these things in public. >> you know, the intelligence community says when we have more transparency, when we tell you what we're doing, those meds become more irrelevant because the terrorists know exactly what we're doing and we have to do something else to chase down the terrorists. so the intelligence community doesn't work so well with transparency. >> well, no, and they've been at odds with us over all kinds of leaks having nothing to do with this particular case. that's their job to oppose any and all leaks and to go after things in this way. it's not just a matter of that. it's a democracy where these sorts of things need to be

discussed, not sources and methods, but the very notion that americans' phone records and some internet records are being collected by the government. >> dana milbank, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> there's so much more to talk about with this story. so we're going to come back and spin on it. stay with us. [ male announcer ] running out of steam? ♪ now you can give yourself a kick in the rear! v8 v-fusion plus energy. natural energy from green tea plus fruits and veggies.

need a little kick? ooh! could've had a v8. in the juice aisle. plays a key role throughout our lives. one a day women's 50+ is a complete multivitamin designed for women's health concerns as we age. it has 7 antioxidants to support cell health. one a day 50+.

edward snowden, an american hero or government nuisance for leaking those classified nsa documents? let's put him through the spin cycle. guys, this is, at least in my opinion, this is complicated

stuff. i, for one, don't like leakers. i don't like whistle blowers. i think it's a matter of integrity that when you're in a job and that job is to keep secrets, then you're supposed to keep those secrets. both because of the information itself, the content, because it's something you said you would do, and because you can't possibly know everything there is to know about how dangerous revealing that information will be. now, i also put whistle blowers who tell the public about, say, the dangers of cigarette smoking or that their water is polluted, i put them in a different category than whistle blowers or leakers who reveal national security information and risk national security. i think they're fundamentally different. that said, i very much would want to know that the government can now take my phone and e-mail records without a warrant or subpoena. that is something i would like to know. i prefer to put that in the

"know" category. so i cannot like the leaker and love the leak. i can like the information, not love the informant. again, i don't have policy recommendations based on that. that's the hard reality for someone in my position where i'm asked to sort of pick a side about this. there's no easy side for me. the only easy side i know is when it comes to the media, that's a red line. the government does not go after the media for the prosecution of whistle blowers and leakers. >> for us, knowing that information actually makes us less safe because that's one of the tools that the government has been using to keep us safe. us knowing it, the terrorists know it. now the mouses run over here. we have to build a new mouse trap to catch the mouse. that makes us less safe. i'm uncomfortable calling snowden a whistle blower. he's a leaker. >> he calls himself that. >> he calls himself a lot of things. i'm not going there. what he's done is he's taken advantage of the post-9/11 directive that we need to share

information. we need to be on a need had share, not a need to know basis. >> and he gets to make that decision. rn >> right. so every person gets to say, well, i don't like it and i'm going to let the world know about it and blow it up. i'm not comfortable with that. i think in the modern world, given the technology and the terrorist threat that we have, that we have to live with every single day, that the surveillance state is going to be a requirement. now, what sort of requirement -- what sort of surveillance are we going to live with? that's what we have to ask ourselves. i think most americans understand there's going to be a trade-off between privacy and what the government needs to know. most americans are comfortable letting the government encroach on our privacy a little bit to get that preventive counterterrorism going. >> until last week, most americans had no idea what was going on and how much of their information was being used and potentially abused because they'd never been told, not by

this president, not by the prior president, not by the leadership of the nsa, not by the reports to congress under the patriot act, which have been woefully misleading as we've been reporting on this show with experts. so what people know based on lies and desemceptions from the government doesn't give us a full picture of public opinion. count me out of the ignorant surrender crowd to the security state. you have 3 million people with security clearances. you have the fourth amount being shredded. we've gone from a court that rubber stamps most requests but looks at them individually to after 2008 with the collaboration of both parties, blanket surveillance of the phone records. what we know is it probably doesn't stop with verizon. we haven't confirmed that. >> of course not. >> anyone who's looked at the pattern here would think this is business lines of all the telephone companies plus the web. so you don't have to like the

criminal behavior of government officials, which obviously they've broken rules in a couple of these cases to see what's going on. as for the excitement about prosecuting these people, i don't see the same excitement when it comes to the leaks out of the white house to defend targeted killing, which are just as criminal. i don't see, until very recently, the same appetite in the military industrial complex to deal with the rampant sexual abuse and rape in the military. so, yes, we have a justice system. i think everyone can come together on that. butw3 selective prosecution against the people who put the most at risk to tell us things that our government refuses to tell us is very alarming. >> but what if the new york subway had blown up because we weren't following terrorists in america trying to plot these things? you want to be counted out of that. then what? would you be comfortable with that? that's one of the things that this program has been able to uncover and stop. so you want to be out of that, but do you want to be in that? that's what you get.

the argument that security should trump all other values, including potentially our rights in the constitution, whether that's the right to vote, the right to speak, or the right to unreasonable search and seizure. yes, i will defend any way i can all of those rights and we've heard a lot of governments throughout the world use security as a justification for everything. you know, in north korea, they have a little box in every home. you can see it. we have a box that you can't see, which is on the internet. some people say you're inclined to lower privacy. if you want to go to north korea and say, i have a box in every home and i feel safer, fine. you might a quantum safer, but you're not more free. >> i think that we can probably all agree on the careful balancing that has to happen with our civil rights and civil liberties and national security. the most important thing that we often forget in this conversation is this didn't just start last week because edward snowden thought this would be a good idea. this started with the patriot act. if there are things that are wrong in the patriot act as several members of congress

raised, we need to look at that. we don't need to start with prism. we need to go all the way back to what actually brought us here. yes, you do have to balance national security. this is not black and white. this is gray. we do have to protect the safety and security of american people. >> yeah, and if you look at what's in the patriot act, to your point, we pulled a couple lines. this is from a supreme court opinion describing it where we talk about the patriot act eliminated individualized targeting. third, it basically limited the court's power to supervise limits on privacy intrusion procedures. that's basically things the court can do to try to keep a handle on this. so that's the larger context. we've had the congress basically open this up further and further and further until there is no court oversight in any meaningful way on an individual basis. with you combine that with a history of surveillance in america where you had martin

luther king and the black panthers and political opponents, malcolm x targeted, sometimes illegally. "the new york times" said this nsa program, which we now know is larger than we were told at the time, was used to go into president bill clinton's e-mail. the security points run both ways. i do think it's complicated. i think people will disagree. we have got to bring this back under some oversight. >> i completely agree. this administration can't just keep picking winners and losers when it comes to good leaks and bad leaks. then they lose credibility on all of it. the american people need to know who the enemy is, who is the acceptable target. we need to have rules of engagement here and some consistency. all right. the debate will certainly continue on edward snowden. we put it to you. is this guy a criminal or a whistleblower? maybe jane -- like us on

facebook and let us know your stance on the topics. straight ahead, it's been tried in the court of public opinion. now a jury gets its chance to try george zimmerman's legal fate. we're live in florida next. time for the your business entrepreneurs of the week. these new moms realized they didn't have a good place to take their babies in new york city. so with their husbands, they opened a clean, unique place in manhattan. the facility was a big success and has since expanded globally. for more, watch "your business" sunday mornings on msnbc. ♪ i' 'm a hard, hard ♪ worker every day. ♪

i' ♪ i'm a hard, hard worker and i'm working every day. ♪ ♪ i'm a hard, hard worker and i'm saving all my pay. ♪ ♪ if i ever get some money put away, ♪ ♪ i'm going to take it all out and celebrate. ♪ ♪ i'm a hard, hard worker... ♪ membership rallied millions of us on small business saturday to make shopping small, huge. this is what membership is. this is what membership does.

♪ chances are, you're not made of money, so don't overpay for boat insurance. geico, see how much you could save.

today our attention turns to sanford, florida, where jury selection for the trial of george zimmerman has begun. the jury of six will come from a pool of 500 residents of seminole county and both the prosecution and defense are allowed six disqualifications without having to justify the challenges to the judge. nbc's kerry sanders is following the trial for us. he's at the courthouse in

sanford. kerry? >> reporter: well, good afternoon. the jury selection is going to we3p we're seeing that right now. inside the courtroom, the judge is talking to the potential jurors. there's aw3ñr jury pool of 500. 100 of them arrived at the courthouse this morning and were first given a videotape to explain what their civic duties are about being a member of a jury, then they were asked to fill out a questionnaire. that questionnaire has been taken into the courtroom. we've moved to the next step of this where both the prosecution and the defense get a chance to% individually askxd questions to the potential jurors. the goal here is to get six jurors and alternates. now, there have been two jurors who have now answered a series of questions, but those questions have been limited in scope by what the judge has given them permission to ask. they've spoken mostly and asked mostly about pretrial publicity and whether they watch television, what they know about the case, whether they've seen things that somehow stick in

their minds that may somehow cause them to have preconceived notions about the case and to also ask them about what sort of hardship this would bring to them. now, the names of the potential jurors has been, by the judge ears order, concealed. it will not be revealed. but we've heard from at least two of the potential jurors today a little about who they are. the second juror to take the stand is a mother. she has an 18 and 19-year-old son as well as three other children. i think she said some babies. she has a mother who lives with her. she and her husband recognize that it would be a hardship because her mother lives with her were she to have to serve on this jury. she said for a few days, that would be okay. the defense said, what if you had to serve on this for months? she responded, well, if that was her obligation, yes, she would have to do it. then on further questioning, he said, well, would you do this or wouldn't you? she said, yes, i would do it. so she recognizes the

responsibility. she is a certified nursing assistant. she said she told her boss about the possibility of serving on a jury and said that, well, if it was for a couple days, that would be okay. they're trying to drill down into the specifics about those issues. now, in questioning one of the jurors, they asked a specific question. could you find george zimmerman not guilty of killing a kid? that's when the judge cut off the questioning by the defense attorney here of the potential juror and said, here's what we're going to do. we're going to get past these initial broader questions about pretrial publicity and hardship until we've reached are 21 potential jurors. we'll put them in the jury box, and then we'll ask them more specific questions. that brings us to where we are in the courtroom right now. >> got it. thanks so much, kerry, for your time. so what will each sideqñr being looking for during jury selection? let's bring in our legal team. criminal defense attorney jamie floyd and richard gabriel,

president of the american society of trial consultants as well as decision analyst. so jamie, let's start with you. we know that sanford, florida, has a checkered past dealing with racial tensions starting back from jackie robinson days. we know both sides will probably be a little concerned about that as well as the stand your ground law and the challenges that's created on both sides. what other red flags can you think of that may be a problem during the voir dire process? >> this is a case in which i believe that jury selection is key. most cases jury selection can be the key moment in the trial, but when you have a high-publicity case and one in which race is a major factor, jury selection can win or lose the case for either side. you're not allows, however, at least as a constitutional matter, to consider race, at least out in the open when selecting your jury. although, i do believe both sides will be thinking about race when they look at these jurors. other things they'll be thinking

about, age of the jurors. i think the defense would prefer older, more established jurors, folks who are more authoritarian, authority minded. the prosecution would prefer younger people. i also think people who have children would be preferred by those -- by the prosecution and people who don't have children by the defense. so obviously, that is a factor. then there's the issue of pretrial publicity. can they find a fair jury? can they find people -- this doesn't mean an ignorant jury, people who have heard nothing about this case. that would be a frightening group of people indeed, but people who can set aside their biases on both sides of the trial and be fair and apply justice. >> richard, let me get you to weigh in. what, in your mind, from the defense and the prosecution's point of view would make the perfect juror? >> well, as i'm sure jami knows and we all know, we're really

deselecting a juror. we're trying to knock away the jurors who have a bias on one side or the other, have formed opinions about the case. so what you're trying to do is really trying to deconstruct and find that neutral or favorable jury. i think the prosecution in this kais case is looking for a couple things. one is someone who's been profiled, someone who knows what it's been like to have been labeled, targeted, and falsely accused. that's what the prosecution is looking for. i think they're looking for what i would call a presumed guilty juror. there are a lot of jurors who think if you weren't -- you wouldn't be sitting there if you hadn't done something wrong. i think the parenting issue, prosecutors want somebody who can relate to somebody who's lost a child. on the defense side, it's a little counterintuitive. i think gun ownership is going to be a very interesting d dynamic. someone who's going to want to say, look, you have the right to defend yourself. a law and order joouror who

typically the prosecution looks for might be better in this case. george zimmerman is the block captain and is protecting homeowners. lastly, the defense is looking for a lone wolf or somebody who's going to basically split this jury because sometimes all they want is a hung jury. >> remember, the minute one side sniffs out that the other side is getting what it wants, they strike that juror if they can. >> that's right. richard, a couple weeks ago george zimmerman's attorneys tried to introduce evidence about trayvon martin's past to try to make him look like a bad kid. that evidence was deny the. of course, that generated a lot of ink, a lot of news coverage about that. reporters telling us what that evidence was, potentially to taint the jury. that's the way the game is played, isn't it? >> well,r this is one of the natures of these high-profile trials. the constitution presumes an impartial jury. we have this kind of funny

artificial system where these jurors have heard months and months of stuff on this case. they ask if they can set that aside. the juror shrugs and says, sure. they're finding out how much they've heard, what their opinions are, how deeply seeded those opinions are. let's face it, this is playing out as the pr and propaganda war. from zimmerman's side, they've been releasing a lot of affirmative defenses in the media. >> there was a funny moment in the courtroom about 10 or 15 minutes ago where mark o'mara asked one of the potential jurors, what is your source of news? he said, news? none. now, i don't know that's the kind of juror either side wants either. someone who's paying absolutely no attention to current events or news. maybe they do. i don't know. >> absolutely.

>> but that's ann interesting point. >> thank you so much, jami and richard. up next, a vote in the senate that millions thought would never happen. [ female announcer ] it's simple physics... 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.

and some other stories leading the news cycle. this monday nelson mandela remains in a south african hospital at this hour battling a stubborn lung infection. his condition remains serious but stable. president obama last hour nominated jason furman to head the white house of economic advisers. if so, he would be one of the most visible voices on the struggling economy. and tennis fans are treated to an amazing show. rafael nadal defeated david ferrer to take the men's title. serena williams won her first title in several years. we'll get an update later. now back to politics and the latest on immigration. it's something that doesn't happen in washington anymore,

compromise. it seems like the much talked about bipartisan immigration bill will get the 60 votes necessary tomorrow to defeat a filibuster and get a floor vote. leading the momentum is new hampshire republican kelly ayotte. she had this to say on sunday. >> our immigration system is completely broken. this is a thoughtful, bipartisan solution to a tough problem. so that's why i'm going to support it. >> senator ayotte is from the northeast. conservative senators rand paul and marco rubio hinted they would come on board or potentially would, but they say the bill needs more border security measures. well, let's bring in nbc latinos paul reyes, an attorney and columnist. how are you? >> good. >> you know what that is? that's prompter it fun. i even know your name. it's like anchor man. you just read what's up there. how are you, raul?

we'll start from the top. now, the main question for you is, do you agree with the premise here? do you think we're on our way to 60 votes tomorrow? >> yes, slowly but surely. i've been optimistic through this whole process. some things have changed since the last time i was here talking about the progress of reform. one is that the republicans are slowly coming around. marco rubio, even though at times it seems like he backs off it, for better or worse, he's so associated with this bill. he's all in. i think he may be making the calculus to reassure his base. the momentum is there. it's happening. >> that's good toñrñr hear, rau. >> i have to say, i really agree with your point too, raul. >> i'd like to say0 one, it is completely prompter with him. it's a prompter it problem, as he says. also, i think sob conscioubcons

he's a nice guy and wanted to make angela feel okay about prompters. like, you're not going to mess up worse. >> that's right. >> wanted to get that out there. let me ask you about speaker boehner. he's become a little more involved recently. what do you think that says? does it say either that the house is now taking this legislation a lot more seriously than it had previously been characterized, or do you think it says that speaker boehner is a little anxious and worried about this? >> i have to say that so far to me it looks like he's getting a little bit worried and anxious. you know, he is the leader of the house. but there is a very strong -- you know, there's a big faction in the house where there is just this intense opposition to reform. even though these republicans in the house, they know it's for the good of their party. they just have this intense opposition to supporting what they call amnesty. in fact, just last week we saw they passed a measure that would essentially defund the deferred

action plan for the children of undocumented immigrants. these are people brought here as children. it's already law. they're just voeting to defund it just because they can. so there's this intense opposition. i think speaker boehner recognizes it's not good for him. it's not good for the party in the long term. it's certainly not going to be good in terms of attracting the latino vote and repairing their image. he's trying to corral them and get them on board. >> so raul, senator reed, to go back to the upper chamber, just said yesterday that the results amendment is a poison pill to comprehensive immigration reform and america's voice latino decisions poll has recorded that 81% of respondents want border security and a pathway to citizenship. 67% of those respondents know someone who's undocumented. what are some other reasons why

this bilked dkel could die? >> john's slogan is -- he does not believe in immigration reform. >> is that official? are those on the stickers? >> that is his position. from time to time, he does get up and give -- you know, sometimes he can give quite an eloquent speech about the need for reform. time and again, when the rubber hits the road, he votes against it. in 2007, he was against it. he voted the dream act. what he's doing here, he's trying to introduce so many border security elements that it would basically, you know, completely imbalance this bill. he's trying to kill it. it does amount to a poison pill amendment. he's not serious. there's a reason. i believe it was america's voice gave him the hypocrite of the year award, i believe it was, on immigration reform because he keeps doing this. that's his known pattern. one more thing that i thought

was very salient from this latino decisions poll. 80% of latino voters are following immigration reform closely. that is something for all the republicans to be very cognizant of. how often do you have such a large segment of the electorate so engaged? >> well, there's a lot of good reasons why the latino community is following it so closely. one of them i'm about to get into. when i argue with people on the right about this issue, they say s look, these people broke the law, that is the end of the conversation. i'm like, well, look, they did break immigration law when we're talking about undocumented workers in order to either reunify with their family or to work and thus pay taxes in america. so it's like, you broke the law to get back with your family and be part of the american community. >> whenever that comes u s up, t does a lot, because many americans are fixated on this

concept of amnesty. first of all, what we have now amounts to de facto amnesty. people just come here. we don't know who they are, what they are, what they're up to. second of all, what's the alternative? that's what we have right now. the alternative is the status quo, which amounts to a type of lawlessness. is that better than amnesty, the so-called amnesty? i think most reasonable people would say no. so i'm the first to say that this senate bill is imperfect. you know, it's still too heavy, in my opinion, on the border security. it leaves out same-sex couples. but it's what we have. it's the compromise that they've achieved, which in itself is extraordinary. the momentum, it needs to continue. certainly the republican party needs it. latinos want it. the democrats, this is a huge promise they made to the hispanic community. they all have a stake in this. they all need to get it done. >> raul, i agree with everything you just said. republicans need it. latinos are waiting for it. democrats need to make good on it.

that's all true. i just want to make sure of one thing. while we need to strengthen legal immigration and make that an easier process and a more efficient process, you don't think that breaking the law is something that we should just allow blanketly, right? >> oh, no. certainly not. as a matter of fact, one of the things, you know, jeff sessions in the senate, he has been out there saying that this bill amounts to an amnesty and that people can legal -- if it were passed, people can legalize today. that is so far from the truth. this bill has quite a long path to citizenship. 13 years, minimum of $2,000 penalties, back taxes -- >> fines, right. exactly. >> all this is contingent on goals being met for border security. so, no, i would not -- i'm certainly not in favor of any type of open borders. this plan, this proposal is a step forward, and it's not even an easy path to citizenship. during the ten years while you're waiting in this

probationary period, for example, if you become unemployed for, i think, it's more than two or three months, your status is canceled. it's not easy. it's not amnesty. in fact, there are many immigrant advocates groups who think it's too difficult, that they've made it too hard. the key to its success depends on it being a clear, direct path to citizenship. that is the goal. >> such important detail. anyone who's been in a relationship can tell you, when the requirement is 10 to 13 years, that is a pretty long-term, steady relationship. we'll keep an eye on it, raul. up next, hollywood's box office blockbusters. have we seen this script before? o i' 've been having an affair of sorts o i' with greek nonfat yogurt, loaded with protein 0% fat that thick creamy texture, i was in trouble. look i'm in a committed relationship with activia and i've been happy and so has my digestive system. now i'm even happier since activia greek showed up because now i get to have my first love and my greek passion together,

what i call a healthy marriage. activia greek. the feel good greek. ♪ dannon the wright brothers became the first in flight. [ goodall ] i think the most amazing thing is how like us these chimpanzees are. [ laughing ] [ woman ] can you hear me? and you hear your voice? oh, it's exciting! [ man ] touchdown confirmed. we're safe on mars. [ cheers and applause ] ♪ hi. [ baby fussing ] ♪

[ whirring ] [ dog barks ] i want to treat more dogs. ♪ our business needs more cases.

[ male announcer ] where do you want to take your business? i need help selling art. [ male announcer ] from broadband to web hosting to mobile apps, small business solutions from at&t have the security you need to get you there. call us. we can show you how at&t solutions can help you do what you do... even better. ♪

i'm sure you've noticed that almost all big-budget movie these days come from old tv shows or best-selling books or comic books or toys or they're remakes or sequels. in 2011, the top sefb ven movie were all sequels. our next guest says get used to it, this is the new normal. the film that started us on this course is -- [ explosion ] >> that was one in a million! >> remember, the force will be with you, always. >> the success of that 1977

blockbuster led to an attempt to find a formula and led to a world where most films must have a brand with preawareness, should have foreign potential, and can generate a sequel. what happened to art? to find out, let's bring in linda, a time hollywood producer who helped make "contact" and sleepless in seattle" and wrote a new book. this abnormal is give is us big pictures but it's not necessarily giving us better pictures. >> he sometimes the pictures are really good but that's not the point. the point is to be able to generate more and more and more of the same product. so that it gets more and or awareness overseas and it can generate a product that is essentially infinite in its potential to make profits. >> yeah. we're going to play a clip from a film that many people will recognize but perhaps not this scene. take a look.

♪ [ speaking foreign language ] >> so what you're looking at here for people who don't know is a scene that was added on to "ironman" for the foreign release. and you talk in your book about how a lot of these means are being repurposed from the beginning for this sort of foreign audience that sometimes is up to 70% of gross. how much does that change the way our movies are being created? >> it changes them fundamentally. when i first starred in the business, the foreign market was 20%. and the domestic audience was 80%. now it's fundamentally reversed. china is the number two market in the world. and by 2020, it's going to be the number one movie in the world. china basically only wants to play our 3-d and our imax

movies. they have a quota and that quota only allows 3-d and imax movies in our blockbusters. so if we know that that's going to be the number one market in the world and they only want our blockbusters and action movies, they won't let in dramas, won't let in political movies, they won't let in certain kinds of movies, then why is hollywood going to make anything that's not going to get into the number one market in the world. >> i was struck watching the tony's last night a similar thing is happening on broadway. while the theater has had a great history of revivals i'm now seeing a lot of shows taken directly from movies like the loin king, a christmas story, kinky boots. is this in your opinion a lack of originality or maybe we're just all like nostalgic for things of the past. what's your take? >> i think it's two things. i think that we're all in one big mush pot of preawareness. there's a little bit of laziness

going on. something has to be really, really good to be or and get made and get people's attention. and why do something really, really good if you can just buy what we call an ip which is an intellectual property or in some places we call them books. >> i've heard of those. >> we used to call them books in the movie industry when i got there. now they're ips like "the hunger games." if we have a title that everybody's heard of, it's so much easier for the signal to through the noise and just sell it. >> linda, nice being in the mush pot with you. talk about a thriller. you're in the cycle, where you never know what's coming next. i digress. ♪

if you have high cholesterol, here's some information that may be worth looking into. in a clinical trial versus lipitor, crestor got more high-risk patients' bad cholesterol to a goal of under 100. getting to goal is important,

especially if you have high cholesterol plus any of these risk factors because you could be at increased risk for plaque buildup in your arteries over time. and that's why when diet and exercise alone aren't enough to lower cholesterol i prescribe crestor. [ female announcer ] crestor is not right for everyone. like people with liver disease or women who are nursing, pregnant or may become pregnant. tell your doctor about other medicines you're taking. call your doctor right away if you have muscle pain or weakness, feel unusually tired, have loss of appetite, upper belly pain, dark urine or yellowing of skin or eyes. these could be signs of rare but serious side effects. is your cholesterol at goal? ask your doctor about crestor. [ female announcer ] if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.

once somebody asked me when would i stop talking so much about injustice against black men. i guess my talking about it was annoying to them. i said when this country stops injustice against black men. for me the injustice happening is a pain in my soul. today florida versus george zimmerman begins while floyd versus new york city moves toward its end, the lawsuit challenging the city's stop and frisk program which 88% of hundreds of thousands of stops involve brown young men and very few result in an arrest. the suit believe the program is infused with racial profile package both trials bing to mind the assumption of black men criminality the way we are so often guilty till proven innocent. the studies of all races tend to think they see guns in the hands of unarmed black men far more

often man the hands of whites because of internalized biases. zimmerman's attorneys attempted to boost evidence that would boost trayvon martin was a thug. stop and frisk can be triggered by what they call if yourtive movements and all that means is being black or brown in the wrong area. black people have long known young black men are viewed as criminals whether or not they are and often instill fear in others without trying to. that becomes our problem. it becomes confrontations we don't want. this is why my parents told me when i was young the same sorts of things so many black parents have told their sons, don't run in public unless you're playing sports. in stores, keep your hands visible at all times. avoid putting them in your pocks. and if you end up seeking to police, speak softly. answer questions directly and quickly and bury your anger as being treated like a criminal till later. coat is afraid of you.

that's your problem. we move with a cascade of suspicion and assumption of criminality, something catherine russell brown once called the criminal black man stereotype, a compound word for her because crime, danger and black maleness are so often conflated. we're expected to be monsters till proven safe because the bices of so many lead to the criminal actions of a few representing the inherent criminality of all while the criminal behavior of white men does not overshadow the lot of them. living within a sea of people believing the myth you get the black bar mitzvah where an intense confrontation with police becomes a baptism to learn what societies thinks of you as a black man. you may do what young obama did, be a man of no sudden moves. it may get you far but it may not because you never know what will baggage someone else is approaching you with. all that can lead to what some have called proper negro fatigue

because i have to mol phi around everyone around and me and let them know i won't rob them. no matter how good i am at that i still know i may end up dead. that does it for "the cycle." martin it's yours. >> tourre, you're a teddy bear. thank you so much. if you wouldn't mind, please send your colleague ari melber over here because we want his opinion on the nsa. the president, you invited a debate on civil liberties and national security. and now you've got one. >> you can't have 100% security, 100% privacy and zero inconvenience. >> when did the government suddenly become our psychoex-girlfriend. >> people want their government to do this. >> they certainly don't want to find out after an attack that something could have been done. >> don't troll through a