last word. you can catch my show, now, weekdays at noon eastern right you mean there's no scandal? let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews up in new york. let me start tonight with this. once there was a whiff of scandal, you know that whiff of scandal over at the irs. well, now we learn there is not even that whiff. no, not even a whiff. no. just one desperate california congressman whose bluff has been called. and with us tonight, the man who called the bluff, u.s. congressman elijah cummings, ranking democrat on the house oversight committee. congressman, thank you about this whole thing. you have produced today a lot of information, a lot of transcripts. tell us what they show about whether there was a scandal at

the irs, a screw-up or what. >> it shows basically that there was a republican a conservative republican manager in the cincinnati office, chris who felt that it was his duty to look at certain cases. and so one of his managers under him said, look, this is back in february of 2010, said look at this case. and i think we need to take a look at it because they are asking for to do little activity, but they want tax exemptions. so the manager, this conservative republican self-proclaimed by the way, said you know what? you're right. and he sent the case up to washington office of the irs. and so basically, chris, you know when you look at all of the transcripts, there has not been one single syllable alleging in any way that the white house was

involved in this targeting. but yet, still our republican chairman and other chairmen in the house have gone about saying that there was some enemies list and that the administration was not being forthright and that they were involved. well, there's nothing like that. it basically started with one man who believed that he was doing his job. and he so happened to be a conservative republican who spent six hours with our committee in an interview and he was very candid and very honest. and he felt that what he was doing was consistent with what he was supposed to do in the job that he held. and so you know, i think basically i got sort of tired, chris, of seeing transcripts being leaked, or parts of transcripts being leaked by our

chairman. but at the same time, not transcripts of this particular gentleman not being put forth. so that we could get a complete story. all i want to do is make sure that the american people have the complete story. >> you know, you're a very humble guy, congressman. you're the ranking member on that committee, the ranking democrat. i got to tell you, we cover the news every hour here on msnbc. this story has been popping around here for more and a month the big scandal at irs. man you're so much inside that you don't realize the noise that has been created by this crazy charge of scandal. somebody in the white house, somebody in the campaign. somebody has an enemies list at the white house, somebody got the people, the bureaucrats over there to go and attack the enemies of the white house. all this, all this, all this is nothing. right? >> yeah, that's exactly right. that's exactly right, chris. the interesting thing, this past weekend, our chairman had various reporters in his offices

reviewing in some instances full transcripts. the interesting thing he did not reveal one syllable of the transcript that we released today. and all -- and i keep telling our chairman and our committee, this is about, chris, integrity. >> yes. >> you know, you could release all the transcripts for all i care, and we will follow the evidence wherever it leads. but let's not you know cherry pick a few facts, a few lines from our transcript and then give one impression when exactly the opposite will be seen if the entire transcripts of all the transcripts are put out there. and that's what this was all about. >> it seems to me it's worst than just a failure to deliver on a promise. it looks to me the way the chairman of the committee's handling this and handling your disclosure today of the statement from the person over

there who ran the operation who said it had nothing to do with politics or anybody outside the irs or even the unit. >> that's right. >> it seems to me there is a cover-up here instead of the guy looking for a cover-up, there is a guy committing one. now that's my charge. you don't have to make it. let's go through some of the findings here. we now have insight into how this mess started. the first case was flagged in cincinnati. to remind everybody. it was a group manager, the self-identified republican actually who centralized these cases for consistency because they were all similar. in other words, those files for nontax exempt status or tax exempt status were all identified as tea party. it was a cincinnati-based screener under him that developed the inappropriate screening criteria using terms like patriot and 9/12. a manager didn't learn about the screening terms until a year after they were put in place. you found that to date, no witnesses have identified any white house involvement here. in other words, this was a technique used shorthand like we often do in any business government or nongovernment to try to get a job done. it turned out it was tainted because it was generalizing

about a groups that had the same name. >> yeah. and i think, chris, if you read the transcript, it's clear that this conservative republican manager, you know, he put his party hat to the side and he was doing what we would hope that any public employee would do, and that was be independent and do the job according to the law. and clearly, the ig came back and said there was some mismanagement here. i need some clarity as to tax exempt status. who should get it? things of that nature. and so again, here is a man who was trying to do his job. and that's basically what he said. >> here's darrell issa. here's the chairman of the committee's reaction to you. i want to know what you think of this. boy, this is crocodile tears. quote, i am deeply disappointed that ranking member cummings has decided to broadly disseminate and post online a 205-page

transcript that will serve as a road map for irs officials to navigate investigative criminals with congress. after unsuccessfully trying to convince the american people that will irs officials in washington did not play a role in inappropriate scrutiny of tea party groups and declaring on national television that the case irs was targeting was solved and congress should move on, this looks like flailing. he seems to be implying something that you never said. that this didn't have to do with the irs. he is fighting a straw man here. the charge from him has been from day one, political hanky panky from the white house. he issues code like washington all over the place. always the shell game goal to blame it on obama. he deputy have an iota of proof, does he? >> no, there is absolutely no proof. people can actually see the transcript and it's very clear. but there's something bigger than darrell issa here.

and that, again, chris is integrity. we've got irs employees who thought they were doing the right thing. they testified that they believed that they were doing the right thing. but poor management, all kinds of problems within the irs need to be addressed. but there was absolutely no -- absolutely no, they said there was no political involvement. white house was not involved. and this fellow, this republican conservative acted on his own accord. >> now, you say that's -- we have enough information now to basically recognize this has been a problem that's contained. never went beyond the irs operation. why haven't you released all the transcripts of all the interviews conducted by your committee? >> great question. try to defer, chris. you worked on the hill, to the chairman. i don't like the releasing of transcripts to be frank with you. and the only reason we release ours is we saw the cherry picking and just part of the story being told.

but, you know, i've told the chairman that i want to sit down with him and to try to determine how best to, he and i, to release -- should release transcripts in the future. i still have not gotten a response with regard to that. we've asked for meetings on it. we've gotten no response. and chris, keep in mind, that before we even released our transcript, the chairman had told had said that to do it would be reckless. so i then asked them and you know, what can we do, what portion of the transcript should we redact so that it won't be reckless so it won't be a road map. >> right. >> we have not gotten an answer yet. >> would you like to see him do the appropriate redactions just to prevent identity, but would you like to see him basically release the whole shebang? >> i want -- let me tell you what i want, chris. i want the whole truth, nothing but the truth, period.

whatever that takes. and not a one-sided case where the american public is forming an opinion about something that is only half there. and is not completely true. >> just to completely finish this discussion, is there any reason not to release everything? >> i don't see a reason not to do that, but again, i'm willing to work with the chairman to do whatever we can to do a responsible investigation and not a witch-hunt. chris, chairman issa and i, we are entitled to our opinions. we are not entitled to manufacture facts. >> i would call more a fishing expedition when you come back in an empty boat. any way, thank you, congressman elijah cummings. great work for you. i think we've got this, at least so far it looks like this whiff of scandal is not even a whiff. anyway, thank you so much for coming on. >> thank you. coming up on "hardball," whatever happened to the gop's plans to stay out of women trouble, going after women on

issues where they better not have gone? house republicans this evening are voting to challenge roe v. wade again, this time by banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. they're closing the window on abortions, once again challenging the supreme court. guys, if you're trying to reclaim the middle in this country politically, don't leave out the women again. also, defending surveillance. the head of the national security agency says stop worrying what we're up to. they've helped to thwart 50 terrorist attacks. that's a pretty good argument if they've got it. could some of those attacks, however, have been stopped without all this surveillance? maybe. that's what we're going to learn more about. but also, there might have been more risk. we'll learn more about that too. let's welcome jeff duncan to the confederacy of dunces. otherwise known as the birthers. what a group. finally, let me finish tonight with my simple request, that congress or somebody let the american people vote in some way or another about whether we go to another war or not. isn't this another democracy? this is "hardball," the place for politics. [ mom ] with my little girl, every food is finger food.

so i can't afford to have germy surfaces. but after one day's use, dishcloths can redeposit millions of germs. so ditch your dishcloth and switch to a fresh sheet of new bounty duratowel. look! a fresh sheet of bounty duratowel leaves this surface cleaner than a germy dishcloth, as this black light reveals. it's durable, cloth-like and it's 3 times cleaner. so ditch your dishcloth and switch to new bounty duratowel. the durable, cloth-like picker-upper.

oh, it's certainly not too early to think about 2016. and hillary clinton just got a big boost from a high profile u.s. senator. missouri's claire mccaskill announced today she is supporting hillary for president. mccaskill is the first member of congress to get on board with the ready for hillary superpac. it's worth pointing out that mccaskell was an early obama supporter back in 2008. i guess she likes to be the first one on the train. and we'll be right back. welcome back to "hardball." as a trainer, i see a lot of people

missing workouts because of sports injuries. runner's knee... ...it's right there. shin splints... ...it hurt right on this side. injuries like these can come from the pounding your feet take. but i found something that helps. dr. scholl's active series insoles with triple zone protection to help reduce pain from three sports injuries: runner's knee, shin splints, plantar fasciitis. i can feel the difference. i'm a believer. i'm back working out. i'm a believer. try dr. scholl's active series. i'm a believer. welcome back to "hardball." the general breakdown in the 2012 election was stark. president obama won the women's vote by a ten-point margin. so bad for republicans they began a soul searching autopsy to figure out what went wrong. well, among other things, women voters. it appears those lessons haven't sunk in yet. house republicans tonight are bringing to the floor a bill that would been abortion at 20 weeks. not only does it violate supreme court precedent which says women have a right till the 24 week mark. this bill will never become law

because it won't get through the senate, as we all know. even if it did, the president said he won't sign it. even republican charlie dent of pennsylvania sees the political truth right here. quote, i think it's a stupid idea to bring this up. the economy is on everybody's mind. we're seeing stagnant job numbers. confidence in the government is eroding, and now we're going to have a debate on rape and abortion? this doesn't seem like the way for republicans to win back the middle politically. joining me is joan walsh and michael steele, his new book is the recovering politicians 12-step program to survive crisis. both by the way are great members of our team here. the debate on the bill, the pain capable unborn child protection act has been heated on the house floor. here are two congresswomen, debbie wasserman schultz on one side, michele bachmann on the other. let's catch the debate. >> this bill is extreme and an unprecedented reach into women's lives, into women's personal lives.

this is a clear indication that the well-being of women in this country is not something republicans care to protect. >> this is a picture that was taken of an unborn baby yesterday. this is the age of a baby, the youngest age at 20 weeks that this bill is referencing. and this is the picture of the mom. we're here because we care about women. >> well, there we have it. a hot new debate. this debate wasn't in it by roe v. wade. the republicans have been using the issue politically without having to deal with the calamity that would come if they get to outlaw abortion. they get all the advantages of debating the issue without having to deal with the reality of it because the court protects them, ironically. isn't that it? >> exactly. they will go at it over and over and over again. they will say that science is on their side. when this notion that fetus feels pain, that doesn't happen till the viability mark probably 24 weeks. none of us like talking about this stuff. but again and again, we're shoved into having this debate over a bill that will never become law.

and i don't get it. i don't know what michael's party is doing. >> well, we have michael here. it seems to me, i've read a lot of newspapers this morning. one of the articles was it may have been in politico, the republican party, i think it was michael gerson in the of washington post said you've got to protect your christian conservative right. it's the largest chunk of your party. whether you like it or not. and also your suburbanites and secular. the reason you do this is you think there's politics here to be gained in terms of solidifying your base. >> i think gerson is absolutely right about that. there is a lot of political calculation going on here. the reason why we saw, for example, the beginning of this congress backing in 2011, you had for, you know, an abortion bill. at the end of the last president's term, again, there was rumblings of putting abortion bills on the table. this is to lock in that base which quite frankly, chris you and i have talked about this. the base for over 30 years has been looking for the party to lead the way to overturn roe

versus wade. to give the supreme court or put a court in place. >> how is it doing? >> what it does is, i think it does two things. it says to them, look we're fighting for you, knowing that the bill isn't going to go anywhere but you're putting it in the context of conversation around the country. >> you think that conversation is good for your party to be challenging? >> no. >> for pro-choice women? >> no. i'm trying to explain to you some of the machinations and the thinking behind the scenes here. i think where dent is. i think this is a crazy conversation to have right now. first off, for the political reason it's not going anywhere. more importantly, this is not where our strength is. this is not what women are talking about. women are trying to find jobs for themselves, their kids. they're trying to move their businesses. that's a sweet spot for us. let's talk about that. these other issues will take care of them elves in time. >> i just wonder about that, joan. i know you're pro-choice and i'm pro-choice. i do have concerns about abortion a lot. i wish we could get together and have a national campaign to reduce the number of abortions voluntarily because that's what

it's going to take. it's going to be legal. the question, are you going to reduce it through birth control, through adoption, through all kinds of education there are ways to do it without interfering in people's lives. >> and people who are against this are also against birth control. so they're contributing to more abortion. >> you get into late term. there are options for adoption at that point. it should be part of a national discussion. earlier today, on msnbc, congresswoman marsha blackburn who is cosponsoring this bill is managing the debate was asked whether bringing this bill up when it has zero chance of getting past the senate or getting a signature is actually pandering to the christian right. let's listen. >> no, it isn't pandering at all. it's saving the life of women and of babies pandering? absolutely not. i can't believe you would say something like that. my goodness. >> pandering. i just said it again because michael makes the point and we

have made the point this is not going to get through the senate which is pro-choice basicall so they know you're paying attention to them without doing anything. >> it's feeding people politically. they think they're smart, they're really clever. they now put a woman's face on their anti-women agenda. i want to praise our colleague craig mehlman, he handled that situation very well. she is someone who went on "meet the press" two or three weeks ago and said that women don't want pay equity bills. i mean, she down the line opposes contraception down the line, opposes pay equity. she's against the women's agenda but she is a woman. so they think they're being really cute by putting her out there instead of trent franks, the disaster. >> let's turn over the pillow to the cold side. "the huffington post" reports today the house massachusetts minority leader nancy pelosi and congresswoman, all pro-choice have briefed house freshmen on what's called the new women's economic agenda, in quotes. in effect rebranding labor issues as gender issues.

it includes raising minimum wage, more affordable child care, of course, and passing the paycheck fairness act. leader pelosi said, quote, i think it's an accumulation of issues that come back to respect for women, whether it's respect for a woman's judgment when she decides or has to choose, but to enter the workforce, or how she is compensated. there is an equal way. pelosi said all these have mothers, all members of congress do, they have mothers, daughters, sisters, wives. they must think that they have value in the workplace. is this smart for the democrats to say maybe we can't win on older issues that have gotten less exciting than they used to be by saying you know what? these are hurting women. they're the people that often get minimum wage. they're the ones that certainly are concerned about equal pay. >> right. >> right. >> instead of just saying another labor issue we have fought over for years, instead saying these are gender issues. is that smart politics? >> it is very smart politics. i begrudgingly give my hats off to nancy pelosi for framing the argument this way. it goes back to the point i was

just making. so you have house republicans tonight voting on an abortion bill, and you have the former speaker of the house talking to women about pay inequities and creating opportunities and finding a level playing field for them to break glass ceilings and to advance economically, which again goes back to my point that this is a sweet spot. it should be for the gop, particularly when it talks about women-owned businesses and creating enterprise zones and those types of strategies that empower those women who are entering the marketplace and who have been in the marketplace. but again, that's not the conversation we're having with the country. >> don't listen to, this michael. don't listen to what we're seeing. joan, we're talking about that guy michael steele. do you think that moderate approach, do you think he might make a really good republican candidate for governor of maryland? >> he might. but he is going to have to come and talk to me about women's economic issues too, because these are women's economic issue. you have rick scott vetoing the paid sick leave bill. and then you have rick perry

vetoing pay equity. so republicans are failing on the economic issues as well, michael. so let's talk. >> michael's a different breed i think a different breed of cat in this regard, aren't you, buddy? >> i am a different breed. this is why i'm here and not at the rnc. >> thank you so much michael steele, as he ponders his future. i just love teasing him. i have no idea what he is thinking. but i think he would be a fine public official. thank you, joan walsh. i am a voter in maryland. thank you michael steele. tomorrow, senator joe manchin of west virginia will join us. he is a gutsy guy defending himself against attacks by the nra after proposing a reasonable background check expansion which would include gun shows. that's all he's done ladies and gentlemen of west virginia. this is not some wild eyed liberal by any means. up next, the birthers, the shameless birthers are back. this is "hardball," the place for politics.

[ heart beating, monitor beeping ] 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.

back to "hardball." now the sideshow. first, jimmy fallon finds a way to connect president obama's approval ratings to the miss usa contest. here's a quick refresher on miss utah's difficult response tops equal pay for women in the workplace. >> i think we can relate this back to education and how we are continuing to try to strive to figure out how to create jobs. we need to try to figure out how to create education better. so that we can solve this problem. >> well, here's jimmy fallon's take on that. >> there's a new poll found that the president's approval rating dropped eight points in the last month. and based on how he has done so far, we can actually see what obama's future ratings will be. next week his approval ratings will go up three points.

let's see why. obama makes it illegal for your friends to post photos of their babies on facebook. in july his ratings will drop five points. let's see why. obama hires miss utah as his speechwriter. tough. finally in august, his approval rating will rise 12 points. let's see why. obama appoints ryan gosling as secretary of handsome. next, birthers. as pt barnum once said, there's one born every day. there are people in the congress today who say president obama was not born in the united states. here's south carolina republican jeff duncan with right-wing radio host dick wiles questioning, as he puts it, the president's validity. >> well, all you guys are rounding up and deporting the illegal immigrants, any chance the house may actually pursue barack obama's phony identification papers? >> well, you know --

>> that's the original scandal, congressman. that's the original scandal. >> in november, people should have voted against him in november and i'm afraid that that wouldn't get to the supreme court where it ought to get. >> but if we know that they're lying about all these other things, why not go back and say well maybe the first scandal was a lie too. >> there you go. i'm all with you. let's go back and revisit some of these things because americans have questions about not only the irs scandal but also about the president's validity. >> what an embarrassment. he chairs the house homeland security oversight subcommittee and he says president obama is not a legitimate president. next a congressman introduces his colleague from american samoa. what could go wrong? a lot. kerry bentivolio was serving as speaker pro tem yesterday when it came time to introduce his colleague from american samoa, or as he put it --

>> the chair recognizes the gentleman from american samoalia, mr. -- benga. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. speaker. it's american samoa. >> i can see the challenge from the gentleman's name out there but it's not somoalia. up next the case for american surveillance. the head of the nsa tells congress it's helped stop dozens of potential terror attacks using that technology. that debate continues here on "hardball." you're watching "hardball," the place for politics.

what i can say unequivocally is that if you are a u.s. person, the nsa cannot listen to your telephone calls and the nsa cannot target your e-mails. >> and have not? >> and have not.

they cannot and have not by law and by rule unless they, and usually it wouldn't be they, it would be the fbi, go to a court and obtain a warrant. >> welcome back to "hardball." that was pretty direct. that was president obama on charlie rose last night, defending the government's use of sweeping surveillance techniques, the details of which were recently exposed by nsa leaker edward snowden. despite the efforts at damage control, americans remain divided about the usefulness of these programs. a pew poll out last night, brand new number barely a majority of people think the leaked programs help prevent terrorist attacks. but all of that was before today's dramatic testimony by intelligence officials on capitol hill. in a house hearing today the nsa and fbi declassified several chilling stories of terror plots inside the u.s. they said were foiled with the aid of these surveillance programs. here is the fbi's deputy director sean joyce discussing the details of two of those plots, one of which references the 702 authority, the legal of

that statute that authorizes the nsa p.r.i.s.m. program that looks at e-mail. >> in the fall of 2009, nsa using 7.02 authority intercepted an e-mail from a terrorist locked in pakistan. that individual was talking with the individual located inside the united states talking about perfecting a recipe for explosives. the fbi followed him to new york city. later, we executed search warrants with the new york joint terrorism task force and nypd and found bomb making components in backpacks. zazi later confessed to a plot to bomb the new york subway system with backpacks. nsa utilizing 702 authority was monitoring a known extremist in yemen. this individual was in contact with an individual in the united states named khalid ouazzani. ouazzani and other individuals

that we identified through a fisa that the fbi applied were able to detect a nascent plotting to bomb the new york stock exchange. he had been providing information and support to this plot. the fbi disrupted and arrested these individuals. >> the nsa and the fbi detailed two other cases one targeting a danish newspaper and another plot. nsa director general keith alexander is also disclosing the sheer number of plots they have intercepted. >> in recent years, these programs together with other intelligence have protected the u.s. and our allies from terrorist threats across the globe. to include helping prevent the terrorist or the potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11. >> joining me now is u.s. congressman jim himes, democratic from connecticut. he is a member of the house intelligence committee.

congressman himes, it looks to me if you listen to what the president said to charlie rose last night and look at the testimony today, the president could not have been more clear. he denied that the united states government has the legal capability or intends to do if it did have the legal capability to try to find out what we're saying on the telephone or our e-mail. it has to be gone through, if you do get a target opportunity, you have to go through the courts and get a warrant. that would be the fbi, not the nsa. so it sounds to me like there's a lot of room between the scandal here as it's been described and the reality. >> yeah, well, part of the problem, chris, is there is a ton of misinformation out there. people believe their phone calls are being listened to. the president is right. by all accounts from everybody we've talked to, that is not true. that doesn't mean we shouldn't still ask a lot of questions about you know, a historically unprecedented collection effort. there is no indication that capturing the verizon disclosure, that capturing people's telephone metadata is illegal. in fact, it appears to be legal

under the patriot act. but we haven't had a chance as a country to have a discussion whether we're comfortable with that. and we also haven't done the work, which we need to do, of course, to find out when general alexander and others say this has been important to helping us or contributed to helping us with 50 terror attacks. how important? those of us charged with oversight need to find out, what was it essential, was it tangential? what are we giving up for what is a historically unprecedented collection effort here. >> did you know about all this before snowden blew the whistle? >> i didn't. but i'm not a good case study because i'm a member of the intelligence committee. >> shouldn't you know? >> your average member of congress who is not on the intelligence committee, most did not know about it. now the intelligence agencies says they informed the intelligence committees, and somewhere along the lines here through your run of the mill member of congress, that got lost. i will tell you, whoever's fault it was, most members of congress were not aware of the programs until edward snowden leaked them.

>> when you guys hang around the cloak room and take the elevator together all day long talking about the latest scuttlebutt, is it considered proper or improper for people like dianne feinstein and the intelligence committee on the senate side and the democratic members on the house side to share information they get on the intelligence committee, or are they supposed to keep it to themselves? >> well, you hope you're not talking about it too much on escalators and elevators. that's obviously a risky thing to do. >> should they share it? >> i would tell you that programs like this that you showed the polling that split the american people that take us to the very edge of where we should be comfortable in terms of the government collecting our private information, we need to have a much more comprehensive set of disclosure for all members of congress for more than a small group of people to know about it. >> i agree with that. i think the country has to have checks and balances on everything like this, including wars. by the way, when are you going to vote on going to war or getting involved in the war in syria or libya? when are we going to have a vote on these kinds of decisions? >> you know, chris, speaking as one member here, there are a

whole lot of areas where the executive, to my way of thinking has probably just stepped a little far over the line in terms of committing our troops, in terms of getting information that i'm not sure we're all comfortable where we've gone. and frankly, you remember two weeks ago doj going after the associated press. we're really pushing the line in where we've been historically in protecting civil liberties and freedom of the press and congress, of course, constitutional duty to declare war. >> someone should remind the president and the rest of the people in this country that even when japan attacked, the empire of japan attacked hawaii, even then when it was a clear-cut case we had to play defense and go after them, they still went to congress for approval of declaration of war. now we're making these wars of choice and we're going in and helping the libyans backing from behind. and then we're going into syria. how about a little vote now and then. it's called democracy. thank you congressman jim himes of connecticut. >> yeah, i hear you. thanks, chris. >> let's turn to sam stein with "the huffington post." sam, reading this as a journalist and looking at this stuff and the president's presentation to charlie rose

last night, is he closing the door on the fact that -- is he proving to the american people that everything is on the up and up here? >> it's a tough call. on the one hand, you know, it would be -- it's logical this program is effective. you're collecting so much data that if it didn't turn out that it resolved or prevented any terrorism attacks, it wouldn't make any sense. on the other hand, if you look -- if you step back and you look at the numbers, you begin to wonder how effective it actually truly is. general alexander said 50 potential terrorist attacks were thwarted. ten of them could have been domestic terrorist attacks. this is a program that took place over a seven-year period of time. it leads to the question, is it what we're doing? is it worth the cost? is it worth the potential infringement on privacy? i'm not sure the president's made the case yet. i think his administration is doing a better job than they were last week from a purely political matter, but it seems they have a way to go. >> they seem a little slow. we're finding out now there was no irs scandal. they could have told us that the first day. and now we're getting around a

pretty good defense. here is the president, by the way. he called the nsa programs transparent and said i am not dick cheney. he pronounced it differently. let's take a listen. >> should this be transparent in some way? >> it is transparent. that's why we set up the fisa court. some people say, well, obama was this raving liberal before. now he's dick cheney. dick cheney sometimes says he took it all lock stock and barrel. my concern has always been not that we shouldn't do intelligence gathering to prevent terrorism but rather are we setting up a systems of checks and balances. >> well, that's a great question, sam. >> sure. >> when he says transparent, most people would say like you walk down the street and look into saks fifth avenue at christmas time. you can see through the window, right? who can see through the window and see that we're mining meta data or we're using p.r.i.s.m. to go after e-mails? we didn't know that. >> obama is not dick cheney. this isn't warrantless

wiretapping. they are getting warrants. secondly, he's also briefing members of congress. as i reported, there has been at least 35 briefings on the p.r.i.s.m. program and telephones. however, as you point out correctly, this isn't transparency. this is checks and balances, but this isn't transparency here. the fisa court is issuing rulings in secret and a bunch of senators on capitol hill have been asking them to publicize their opinions so we can get a scope of the surveillance state. probably because doj is saying don't do it. it would hurt our national security. they have not been transparent. >> okay, thank you so much, sam stein, as always. >> no problem. up next you know him as peter florrick for the show "the good wife." actor chris noth joins us here in new york city. this is "hardball," the place for politics. it's got a great kitchen, but did you see the school rating? oh, you're right. hey babe, i got to go. bye daddy! ...but what about when my parents visit?

ok. i just love this one... and it's next to a park i love it i love it too. here's our new house... daddy! you're not just looking for a house. you're looking for a place for your life to happen. zillow

>> here's good news whether he deserves it or not for florida's governor rick scott. his approval numbers at an all-time high, but that's not saying much. according to a new quinnipiac poll, 43% approve the job he's done versus 44 who don't. he's still trailing charlie crist in a hypothetical 2014 gubernatorial race. crist 4, for scott an approval rating below 50 and re-elect number below 40 is not a recipe for greatness or success. we'll be right back.

welcome back to "hardball." anyone who watches "hardball" knows one of my favorite shows on tv "is the good wife." and chris noth plays the politician and the newly elected governor of illinois. peter florrick is one of the stars of the show. it's all about his toughness, the velvet glove brutality that sometimes is part of politics out there. let's watch this guy in action. >> i thought you only contributed to female candidates. >> i do mostly support female candidates, but i like your wife. you two are separated?

>> no. >> yes. >> but she is supporting you? >> yes. >> they're trying to work things out. >> by not sleeping with prostitutes? if i do support you, do i have to worry about that, another prostitute, another mistress, on the campaign bus? >> no, you don't. >> why is that? >> because i just told you. >> peter has changed. that's why. >> i don't believe people can change. >> you know what? i didn't either. and then, of course, i went to prison. >> oh my god. chris noth joins us right now. what i like about this character, and i think the reason why your wife in the movie, in the tv show likes you is because she can fix things. you're tough. and when you had the relationship with the prostitute on the show. >> oh, yeah. >> and she was going to squeal you out one more time, you said i'm going to tell your gangster boyfriend what you've been up to. you shut her up. it was brutal what you did. the other thing that did bother me, you win the election but get an offer of extra votes you shouldn't get, some double counting.

>> right. >> you very casually say, yeah, i'll take that. >> if it come downs to that. >> so what do you think it says about politics the guy is willing to cheat if it works? >> this is tv politics, of course. >> no. most people who watch the show, as good as "the good wife" think they're getting a slice of life. >> i think like all good politicians, he is compartmentalized. and while he can be a good father, he can, you know, cut the throat of a political opponent if need be. and cannot look at it as unethical and still, you know, go on and be a good guy in other matters. so that he doesn't -- once he does the act, he doesn't think about it, it's done and on to the next. >> how is that different than tony soprano? >> good question. >> let me ask you about -- i know you call yourself a redneck democrat. i want to know, compare that to what president obama is. is he too genteel? not slash and burn enough? >> i wish -- i wish, and he seems to be getting a little

tougher. i wish some of the other democrats would start speaking up a little more. i would like to see our governor, who is terrific, governor cuomo speak up a little bit more. he doesn't seem to be speaking too much on the national level. but i think we've got to get behind him. although i think this whole syria thing is terrible. i don't hear enough democrats with the mouthpieces that these republicans have. and the platitudes that come out of their mouths, just like who is going to give them a little tap in the head and say liar, you know? >> yeah. >> pants on fire. >> by the way, i think the shows on tv right now, "house of cards," "good wife," "homeland." a few years ago people said you can't make a political show. and they're all working. they're tough. >> "house of cards" is on a shakespearean level in publication, fantastic. they really go to some dark places. we like that. >> i want you to take a look at something you have been talking about here to our producers that is this picture of the body

language of president obama with a real tough guy, that's -- that's what's the guy -- putin. >> putin. >> let's take a look. what does that tell you? >> putin looks like a thug here, or he had about five bad oysters. and it looks like obama is trying to make the best of it. just horrible situation. it's like what is this, is the cold war back? >> that's what it looks like. they're talk about syria. >> like when kennedy met with khrushchev and came back and said i was savaged. it's terrible. in a way this could be another introduction to the cold war. with the situation the way it is. does he really think he is going to be able to deal with putin and syria? >> syria has been a client state of the soviet union since the baathists took over back since forever in the cold war. let me ask you about democracy. do you think we should vote about whether or not we get in involved in wars or not? should somebody vote or should we just do it? getting involved with the syrian war. >> it should be a vote. >> they're not voting. >> we don't seem to learn the

lessons of a lot of wars in the past. you know, i don't think you can make the same comparison with vietnam. but i just wonder sometimes when you look at history if we had just had the courage, some of our presidents, to say, i'm not stepping into this. if we didn't step -- if during vietnam, johnson, who was tortured by it had suddenly stepped back and said i'm getting out. >> by the way, you play a politician i believe in. i love florrick because he is tough as nails and gets the job done. not the nicest guy in the world, but a pretty good husband. at a certain level. chris noth, thanks for joining us. and we'll be right back after this. it's been that way since the day you met. but your erectile dysfunction - it could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications,

and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial.

let me finish tonight with this. let me say it loud and clear. if we're going into another mideast war after afghanistan, after the u.s. invasion of iraq, after our leading from behind in libya, shouldn't there be some kind of vote on whether we do it or not? shouldn't we do it the right way and end diplomatic relations with the government of syria before we start handing out rifles to people who kill the leaders of that country? wouldn't that be the serious right thing to do if we, ourself, are serious about this? if we're going to commit an act of war against another government, shouldn't we be straight-up about it? or is overthrowing islamic governments what we do now? is that now the natural business of this country? why don't we change the name of department of defense to the department of killing islamic people on global television department, because that's what we've been doing for a dozen years. i'm being sarcastic because it's the only way to describe what i consider the true american reaction to this thing we now do without having a vote on the matter. we don't bother to declare war

because it's just a normal thing we do. why declare it when war has become the new damn normal. 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. thank you for joining us. tonight, on "all in" you may not have even ever heard of the man who sat down before congress today to testify on the nsa surveillance programs. but he is a man so powerful it's possible that he has heard of you. also tonight, new whistleblowers have emerged. these have got nothing to do with the nsa. these insiders pulled back the curtain on one of the most shameless schemes by a big bank to fleece americans that we've ever seen. shocking details coming up later. plus why would preside