>> good evening, chris. thank you. thanks to you at home for staying with us for the next hour. map time. this is canada. canada is enormous. canada is the second largest country in the world by area. it's provinces and territories stretch from the yukon terry all the way to newfoundland in the east. the eastern parts of canada are way further east than you think they are. there is a whole time zone in canada that is an hour further east than the eastern time zone in america. canada is huge. but the canadian province that sits roughly on top of the state of montana is the canadian province of alberta. earlier this month, there was a plane full of oil company officials flying over that part of the province.

they noticed there was something wrong. an oil pipeline had burst, even though nobody had heard anything about it. it was being operated by a texas company just leaking all over the place. the spill was first noticed that day by company officials flying -- they noticed it from the air. they in turn notified the government of alberta. something weird happened after they notified the government of alberta, nobody said anything. the company and the government just kept quiet about the whole thing for days and days and days. the spill was first spotted from the air on june first. it was not until 11 days later on june 12th the government finally said anything publicly about the fact that it had happened. some local residents learned about the spill before the government announcement after somebody reported it to a local tv station. the rest of the public was essentially left in the dark. asked why they kept quiet about the whole thing that entire time? an official from the oil company said, it didn't affect people in general.

there wasn't anybody harmed. there wasn't anybody that was directly affected. that is not at all true. here's what that spill looks like. just oil and wastewater and toxic goo everywhere. as you can tell, this is a heavily wooded area. this is actually an environmentally sensitive wetlands region that a local indian tribe relies on for hunting and trapping and their basic survival. a chief for that tribe told a local official that every plant and animal died in that area. this spill which the oil company and the local government decided to not inform the general public about for 11 days after they knew about it, turns out to be giant. turns out to be one of the largest spills of its kind in recent history. it covers an area of more than 100 acres. 9 and a half million liters of this toxic goo has been

released. and even though the oil company has insisted publicly that what was spilled was not actually that harmful, they say, it's mostly just saltwater, trust us. the images that have been released by those who live in the area seem to show a heck of a lot more oil mixed in with that fresh clean water. in response to this spill. there was initial questioning whether enough was being done to maintain the aging oil infrastructure in that area. whether these old pipelines were meeting the necessary safety standards, whether more should be done. whether more should be invested in safety sake in replacing all the old stuff. and that worry is why it freaked everybody out so much when they realized this big disaster in alberta was not because of the old stuff. the pipeline that failed and that took those 100 acres with it when it failed, a pipeline was only five years old. it was a 5-year-old pipeline designed to last for 30 years,

it didn't even make it one sixth of the way through its expected life span. a spokesman for the oil company said it was puzzling as to why the pipeline leaked. >> we have no idea. i wonder why that happened. pipeline spills have become a common thing in north america. not just in canada, but here as well. there was the big exxon pipeline spill that took place earlier this year in mayflower, arkansas. that was an aging pipeline. none of the residents in the area knew their houses were on top of a pipeline, but it was there. the burst pipeline that sent oil flowing through the streets like a wave. it was nearly 65 years old. it was also the giant yellowstone river oil spill in montana, july 2011. that was also an exxon pipeline. that one fouled one of montana's legendary natural assets. and the enbridge oil spill near the kalamazoo river in michigan in 2010. cleanup costs are up to a billion dollars and counting so far.

in part because that's alberta tar sands oil and no one really knows how to clean up alberta tar sands oil. up in alberta, it's the red deer river that the oil spills have been fouling lately. oil spills have been fouling a lot up there for a long time. the network of infrastructure through alberta have had an average of two crude oil spills of some kind or another every single day for the past 37 years. two spills a day. it's easy to conclude that that's canada's problem to deal with, right? president obama has to decide whether it's going to be our program. president obama has to make a decision whether or not to approve construction of the keystone xl pipeline that will carry oil from alberta canada all the way through the united states to the gulf of mexico. that project requires a presidential permit in order to go forward because that pipeline crosses the international border with canada.

the company that's trying to get that presidential approval to build the pipeline is a company called trans canada. their public pitch about why president obama should approve their permit immediately is all about how safe this pipeline's going to be. >> we can build a safe pipeline, this will be the safest pipe line that has ever been built in the united states. and i don't think that the process needs to take this long. >> this will be the safest pipeline that has ever been built many that was the ceo of trans canada. they're going to make this as safe as houses, right? this week we learned maybe not. trans canada has reportedly decided to reject the latest most state of the art technology that is out there for catching oil leaks in pipelines. there is a system out there of infrared sensors and fiberoptic cables laidout side the pipeline. that system exists. that sort of technology has officially been recommended by the u.s. government for this

particular pipeline project. trans canada says actually we're good. we're not going to do that. they say employing that kind of technology would be impractical for this project. they're not going to do it. yes, they said they would be the safest pipeline ever, but not that safe. the spill detection systems that they are planning on using have what's called a spotty record of catching leaks, according to the u.s. department of transportation. trans canada is going to go with the spotty record stuff anyway, instead of the state of the art stuff. that sort of attitude toward safety on this project is part of why there is so much political con stra nation and attention and protests when it comes to this one particular pipeline. honestly, this would not be the only pipeline in the united states, it's not like we don't have others. we already have more than 19 million gallons of oil moving around the country by that means

every single day. this project and a few others like it, would add another 5 million gallons a day to what we've got already. which would be a big increase. there's also con stra nation here because this pipeline is huge. it crosses the whole country. it cuts the entire country in half. and in so doing, runs through a lot of really important, very large sources of american drinking water and groundwater. which has caused concerns even among pro oil republican governors who find their jurisdictions to be along the planned route. honestly the other reason this is such a hot button political issue is the fact of who gets to make the decision. because it crosses an international boundary, this is on president obama personally to make the decision. it's his thumbs up or thumbs down as to whether or not we can bear the risk of this thing as a country. the fact that this company is not trying to lower the risk as much as they could, that does ratchet up the pressure even further in terms of whether or not the president is going to approve this thing. as does the president's own insistence on keeping the issue of the environment and climate change at the top of his agenda.

on the list of things that he says he wants to do, something about in his second term. he keeps saying that over and over again. in all these high profile speeches, even with congress saying they have no interest at all in helping him work on it. today was the latest instance of president obama doing that. the president travelled to the brandenburg gate to read a speech. the president said we must confront the crisis of climate change before it is too late. >> the grim alternative affects all nations. more severe storms, more famine and floods. new waves of refugees, coastlines that vanish, oceans that rise. this is the future we must avert. this is the global threat of our time. >> global threat of our time. that was today in germany.

but it echos exactly what the president said in the longest treatment of any policy issue in his inaugural address earlier this year. we will respond to the threat of climate change knowing the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can deny raging fires and crippling floods. we cannot resist this situation, we must lead it. he talked about more climate change during his state of the union address a few weeks later. from that, we have one interesting political point. so the president is very publicly urging action on this issue. say ago that we've got to do something on this. but behind closed doors, he has apparently been telling a different story. he's been acknowledging the very real political dangers in choosing to act on this issue. this is according to reporting from the washington post. they say that during a recent private fund-raiser in california, president obama expressed concerns about the

political pain involved. saying that dial testing of his state of the union speech showed that the favorability ratings plummeted when he vowed to act on climate change if congress refused to do so. interesting that dial testing would show people not liking the idea of the president saying he would act on this if congress didn't. but even more interesting that president obama is telling his donors that at fund-raisers when he's explaining to them what's going to happen in the second term. behind closed doors, president obama acknowledging that acting alone on this issue because congress won't carries with it a certain amount of political risk. acting alone even with that acknowledged political risk. one that's on his mind that he's talking about in unscripted moments, even with that, it is apparently what he intends to do. paired with the speech of the brandenburg gate today. as soon as next week we should expect a page her presidential address announcing new policy on

the issue of climate change. none of these new policy efforts will require any money from congress or any legislative action from congress. this is the president acting on his own. the president, we are told will be acting directly despite what he was telling everybody privately about his worries about the dial testing. how does president obama weigh the strategy here? and are there lessons from how previous presidents have dealt with strategic dilemmas like this, that may be informing what he is about to do? joining me now is steve kornacki. he's a senior writer at salon. thanks for being here. >> happy to be here. >> are there historical parallels for other presidents consideration decisions like this? >> i think the biggest thing to keep in mind is, it's the second term, not the first term. there are political calculations here because he's the head of the democratic party many the party, there's a certain amount of -- any political decision he makes, any policy decision he makes will affect the entire party, it will affect democratic candidates in 2014. you're talking about a president that does not have to face the voters again for the rest of his life. he will not be a candidate in

2016, he will not be a candidate ever again. there's a little bit of freedom and urgency that comes with it. because of the gridlock and the republican obstruction. you have this realization on the part of the white house that there's an opportunity here for immigration, if you get beyond immigration legislatively. where are the opportunities to make a big lasting impact on an issue that matters. you look at climate change. he tried to do something in his first term, got stalled legislatively. there are executive powers, he has executive powers that he can use to go around congress on this. i think if there's a time to face the political risks of it is the second term. >> in terms of putting this agenda out there, putting this out there things i can do with a congress that won't act. what do you think he's been bringing up with presidential donors?

i guess they're interested on the environment. pressing him on what to about the issues. he's responding talking about what an unpopular action it might be to take steps on his own. >> you have the keystone thing in there. the expectation, i don't have any real intelligence from the white house. the expectation you hear as well as i do, he will end up approving the keystone pipeline. part of it is tempering the expectations of his base and saying, you don't want the keystone pipeline, you want me taking action on climate change. i think that might be part of laying out the political risks for them. also, i think there's a risk of -- there might be a possibility of overstating the political risk of all this too, if he takes the executive actions we're hearing about now, what are you going to have. obama's divisive, radical, he's refusing to work with us, he's engaged in a job killing war on coal. you're going to hear everything you heard since the day he

became president. it's been effective to a point. there are states and parts of the country that are off limits to obama and democrats right now for all intents and purposes. you think of west virginia which used to be a democratic state where obama just got wiped out last year. there's a lot of reasons he doesn't have a chance in west virginia. in a lot of ways they have paid the political price they would pay. >> what do you think the political calculation is about the midterms and if this is something that is done by this president who is never going to face the voters again. does that insulate democratic voters -- members of congress who you would otherwise be putting on the spot to vote for his agenda on this. and having to defend it in borderline states. >> it frees them from the vote in a state where west virginia, for instance, you'll have whoever the democratic unit is for any race would be tied to the radical decisions of the obama white house. but i also think there might be a second calculation here quickly that's worth pointing out.

tied in with rules reform and the senate. and basically this. obama's epa administrator is facing the potential of filibuster of republicans in the senate. obama also nominated three judges for the appeals court. also facing potential filibuster for republicans in the senate. it's the epa administrator who would have to impose all these new rules obama would be imposing. if there's litigation it will go to the d.c. circuit court of appeals. he's picking a fight over rules reform that could get in place in epa administrator that imposed the rules and judges who would uphold rules in court. >> all the while worrying about what the dial testing in the state -- i love this. i mean, the substance of this issue as a policy matter is fascinating. i think trans canada made it a lot harder for the president by rejecting state of the art safety for the pipeline. his calculation on here is ornate by necessity and it's fascinating.

steve, as always, thanks a lot. the republican party doing its best, trying to reform our immigration system. it's a big deal for immigrants, it's a big deal for republicans. what is in the republican party's way? the republican party, of course. it's been kind of a big day. that story is next.

late word tonight that the great american actor james gandolfini has died while on vacation in italy. there are unconfirmed reports that it was a heart attack. we do not know exactly. his portrayal of a neurotic powerful mob boss in "the sopranos" is justifiably an icon in modern american story telling. he's among the great dramatic characters in history. he was named as the cia director in the movie zero dark thirty. james gandolfini is a great talent and gentle and loving person.

he was a strong and visible and proud booster of his alma matter. he was only 51 years old when he died tonight in italy. we'll be right back. [ female announcer ] your smile. like other precious things that start off white, it yellows over time. fact is, when it comes to your smile, if you're not whitening, you're yellowing. crest 3d white whitestrips go below the enamel surface to whiten as well as $500 professional treatments, at a fraction of the cost. guaranteed, or your money back.

crest. life opens up when you do. want a whiter smile today? try 2 hour express whitestrips. about a month ago, a researcher at the conservative think tank, the heritage foundation caused a round of political constrenation when it turned out his doctoral dissertation was on the white supremacist side. so much so that he got fired from the think tank. the washington post first

reported the story. he had written the average i.q. of immigrants in the united states is substantially lower than that of the white natives of the country. the consequences are a lack of socioeconomic assimilation and more underclass behavior. the only reason anybody cared about jason richwein and his tome of eugenics he was also the author of immigration reform and why we shouldn't do it. the big point, immigration reform could not happen in the united states because it would cost $6.5 trillion.

it's more than it costs to go to the moon and back 1,000 times but they decided that's what it cost to let all these low i.q. immigrants in the united states get legal status. the racial purification guy ended up getting fired his report stayed. his report that immigration reform would cost a bajillion dollars, his ideas have stuck around on the right edge of the immigration spectrum. the congressional budget office which actually scores things like immigration reform, they say the truth is the opposite, the nonpartisan research arm of congress just crunched the numbers on immigration reform and they estimate that the bill that congress is now considering would save the country about $175 billion over the first ten years. it would save the country that much money. over the next decade it would save another $700 billion. it would make the deficit shrink, not grow. it would be economically beneficial not economically bad.

that makes the politics of this awkward. exemplifying the awkwardness of those two things, republicans tried to reach out to latino voters, on the one hand, john boehner met with the congressional hispanic caucus. it's not a partisan body but it does happen to be all democrats. john boehner met with the hispanic caucus. that's outreach. yesterday john boehner said he would not bring to a vote an immigration bill that did not have the majority support of republicans in the house. this is what other republicans were doing today. an all day long filibustery news conference that lasted from 9:00 in the morning until 5:00 in the afternoon, all about their opposition to immigration reform. all about how immigration reform would be disastrous for the country.

on the same hand you have glenn beck protested that the kansas secretary of state's house, he's comparing them to the ku klux klan. >> 700 protesters got into buses at a church and went to his house to protest. this is the same tactics used by the klan in the 1960s. >> if tactic, you mean travels from point a to point b in a vehicle powered by a combustible engine, then yes immigration reform protesters are exactly like the kkk, mr. beck. when the heritage foundation let the eugenics guy write his report, it was senator jim

demint -- he up and quit in the middle of his term to go run the heritage foundation. it turned out the backbone was sort of really ostentatiously racist and the researcher got fired. jim demint did not get fired. when fox news needed a guest to talk immigration reform, they booked jim demint. that was their go to expert guy. over in the senate, the bipartisan group of senators working on the immigration reform. the immigration reform bill, they reported a few hours ago, they have made significant progress. one republican senator said a deal could be reached as early as tomorrow. watch this space.

at the start of this week, the fbi called a big, very highly covered press conference to announce a new addition to their ten most wanted list. the list of the ten people who the fbi considers the most dangerous people in the world. the addition is walter lee williams who is wanted for the alleged sexual exploitation of children. the fbi had their big press conference announcing he was on their ten most wanted list. by tuesday he was captured, one day after the fbi put him on their most wanted list he was caught in mexico.

that's kind of an impressive thing and that is not the shortest stint someone has had. in 1969 it was a man named billy austin bryant who was caught on murder charges after two hours on the list. the fbi put him on the 10 most wanted list, two hours later they had him. more than 90% of the people that go on that list get caught. the whole aren't ten most wanted list is around is publicity. the resulting list the fbi gave to the reporters created so much publicity, the fbi's director started the ten most wanted fugitive's program that same year. it has been proven to work over time now the fbi holds these press conferences announcing who the top ten worst bad guys are, they get a ton of coverage, they

catch the bad guys and that gets them even more headlines. the fbi can marshall a lot of press attention when it wants to, and it does so, when it comes to things they want to get attention for and things they feel are their own successes and then there's the opposite, when the fbi does something that needs explaining. not publicizing or bragging about it, but explaining. something that maybe even needs investigating, but that the fbi would rather everybody shut up about. and that story is coming up next. [ female announcer ] are you sensitive to dairy? then you'll love lactose-free lactaid® it's 100% real milk that's easy to digest

so you can fully enjoy the dairy you love. lactaid®. for 25 years, easy to digest. easy to love.

we've got that sfib story coming up, along with the interview tonight in a second. first, one news note particularly to watch out for tomorrow. to set the scene for you, this is the screen in sao paolo brazil today. demonstrators took to the streets in big anti-government demonstrations. they shut down the roads leading into sao paolo. in another city in the northeast of brazil at least 15,000 people rallied outside a soccer stadium before a match between the u.s.

and mexico. important thing here, today was supposed to be the day off from protesting, after a nationwide demonstrations swept through at least ten major cities in brazil in the past week, today was the day that protest organizers said nobody would protest. they would take the day off. but in a country as big and populated and as annoyed with the government as brazil is right now, a day off is not a normal day off. a day off means that just 65,000 people took to the streets anyway this past week in brazil has seen hundreds of thousands of brazilians in the streets demanding better public services, demanding an end to public corruption. the protesting in rio alone is estimated to include 100,000 people. the relatively peaceful protesters have been met with a police crackdown in cities. protesters walk-through the

streets, police have shot into the crowd with rubber bullets, tear gas and pepper spray. there have been reports of police brutality in some cities. one startling photo that has become the iconic image of this conflict thus far. this is on the front page of the new york times this morning. a woman being pepper sprayed from point blank range. she's dressed casually, does not appear to be posing any threat to anyone. but this is how the police are treating her. she was alone, and these three riot officers approached the woman and told her to leave. she objected to them verbally and this is what they did. brazilian president has tried to diffuse the situation by praising the marchers. yesterday she said, my

government hears the voices clamoring for change those who took to the streets yesterday send a clear message to all society. she is up for re-election next year the protests started over a bus fair increase over ten cents. they plan on reducing public transit fairs following the protests. just about the protests in turkey are no longer about the preservation of a park, they've come to be about much broader complaints about brazilian governance and social services. last year brazil became the sixth largest economy in the world. but income and equality is a huge issue. about one in five people live below the poverty line. demonstrators are protesting in part against billions of dollars

being funneled not into education or health care or other basic needs for the population, but into big spectacular events. into stadiums and if a sill advertise being built for brazil to host the world cup and the summer olympics. the cost to host the world cup is estimated to top $13 billion. the protests today around the stadium, this is brazil today a supposed day off from the protests. these have been incredibly dramatic. incredibly big protests. the main organizers say tomorrow is not the day off it will be the day to watch for when everybody should be expected to hit the streets. it's going to be a big news story tomorrow. watch it here. so what did you think

of the house? 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

about three weeks ago in moscow there was a really dramatic press conference which i have to warn you includes the display of some graphic images, the press conference was called by the family of ibrahim totashev. he was shot and killed by police officers in miami last month. the fbi was questioning him because years earlier he had been friends with one of the suspects in the boston marathon

bombing. he was not a suspect in the bombing, there were never even allegations that he had anything to do with the bombing. while agents were interviewing him at his house in orlando. something happened and he ended up dead. the photos his father displayed at the press conference appear to show his son, his body with six bullet wounds in his torso and one to the back of his head. at the crown of his head, left side we have not authenticated these photos. the family says the photos were taken by a family friend in florida who went to the morgue and took the photos. if he was shot seven times, that's a little hard to square with him being shot in self-defense. his father said he would try to travel himself to try to collect his son's body to bring it back

to russia and be buried. he finally got the body home. the boston globe reporting that part of the reason it took so long to get the body the fbi is still holding on to the man's green card and passport which made it hard to get the body shipped home. the cause of death is listed as homicide. we have nothing else from them, the fbi will not even let the medical examiner's office release the information about how many times he was shot. on the day of the shooting the fbi said he was killed after he initiated a violent confrontation of some sort during his interview. initially three unnamed law enforcement sources leaked to the press that he had been armed with a knife and that's why they had to shoot him. within 12 hours of those initial claims, 2 of the 3 law enforcement sources recanted and said, he did not have a knife.

there were other unnamed law enforcement sources that said he was totally unarmed. why did they have to shoot him? and shoot him a bunch of times, apparently. we got a new leak, he didn't have a knife or a blade of some kind of he wasn't unarmed either, he had a pole or a broomstick or maybe it was a sword. he threw a chair, tipped over a table. maybe lunged for a ceremonial sword that was right there, maybe it wasn't right there, it was across the room, somewhere in the apartment maybe. there have been fbi law enforcement leaks about what happened from the beginning. all contradictory, but all making it seem like the fbi did the right thing by shooting and killing this guy. in the face of all that unnamed source leaking, the official word has been nothing. unofficial self-exonerating leaks by the dozens. but officially nothing.

the boston globe describing the fbi in this case as being unusually tight lipped, saying their refusal to clarify anything contrasts sharply with past shootings involving agents. the only word from the fbi officially at all was that violent confrontation press release the day of the shooting. and the next day the address where the shooting happened. the only thing they said is the shooting is under review. we cannot comment regarding investigative details, the fbi takes seriously any shooting incidents involving our agents and we have an effective time tested process for reviewing them thoroughly. this is supposed to be or reassurance, be patient. this whole thing makes no sense

but the fbi itself will get to the bottom of it, internally. you want to know how that's going to go? according to the blockbuster scoop in the new york times today, the fbi has used this internal review process to investigate 150 shootings by fbi agent the over the past two decades. 70 people shot and killed by fbi agents. 80 people shot and wounded by fbi agents. and if you add those together. in all 150 of those cases, the fbi internal review process said that the shooting was justified. all 150. in a lawsuit, the times got 2200 pages of documentation from the fbi showing that perfect 100% exoneration rate for all fbi shootings that killed or wounded someone between 1993 and 2011. since 2011, same pattern. an fbi spokesman says there have been no findings of improper

intentional shootings by fbi agents. more than 150 shootings that killed or wounded somebody. all reviewed internally, all of them -- every single one turns out it was just fine, totally justified. that was even the finding in one shooting in maryland, where an fbi agent shot an innocent man in the head after mistaking him for a bank robber. they shot him in the head, he survives and the bureau settled the lawsuit with him by paying him $1.3 million. still, the internal review said the agent did nothing wrong so then why did you pay him $1.3 million. they have never said an agent did something wrong when an agent killed or wounded a person. if that seems sketchy, don't worry. current and former fbi officials defended the bureau's handling of shootings, finding the behavior were attributable to several factors.

agents tend to be older, more experienced and better trained than city police officers and generally are involved only in planned operations and tend to go in with overwhelming presence, minimizing the chaos that can lead to shooting the wrong people. so they never shoot the wrong people, except for sometimes when they shoot the wrong people and have to pay them $1.7 million. and 150 out of 150 all clear. that is the perfect review, perfect record process that is under way right now in the thus far totally unexplainable killing of the young man that the fbi shot and killed while questioning him about the suspects in the boston marathon shootings. that is the agency's justification, saying nothing about the shooting, other than the unofficial leaks to the press. and this is the only review that will ever happen of that shooting. this is no other official inquiry of any kind into the shooting.

not the local prosecutor where the shooting happened. not an independent inquiry even though two massachusetts officers were there. there will be no other kind of internal review process, that in 20 years has a perfect record of exonerating the person every time. no wonder the family is angry. joining is now for the interview, tim weiner, author of three books, including "enemies." great to see you. >> hello, rachel. >> what should we understand about the total information blockout about the todashev killing? >> the fbi is our secret police. and they do a lot of dirty, dangerous, specific jobs, like white collar criminals. but there is one job they cannot

do, and have been able to do in the 100-year history, which is to police themselves. >> if a prosecutor in orlando said you know what? this has been ruled a homicide by the examiner and this happened on my watch, i want to investigate. could that happen? >> no, a giant comet will hit the earth before that happens because the fbi jurisdiction is nationwide, and trumps every case. there is only one force that is able to investigate the fbi and that is the inspector general's office at the justice department, which on the flow chart of the government is above the fbi. that is a small crew of over-worked and under-paid lawyers. they have looked into misconduct before. but not individual shootings. they will get after great systemic problems but not a pattern of misconduct as revealed in the nifty scoop by

my old newspaper today. >> well, pattern of conduct, this scoop is astonishing. they posted on line 2200 pages of documents that are all of these review, but the bottom line, shouldn't we expect that that pattern is too suspicious to go uninvestigated? >> this is one of the great problems with democracy. okay? we want a secret police to keep us safe. and we want to be free and have civil liberties, freedom of information and knowledge, but who is going to police the police? okay? this has been a problem of democracy ever since they came up with the idea in athens a while ago. >> has there ever been an effective effort over the course of the life of the fbi, to police it better than it has been policed? >> i can think of two. after watergate, after nixon fell, the fbi had to investigate itself. because under nixon and johnson,

going back in the '60s, they had broken into people's houses, tapped their phones, gotten their mail, without warrants. sound familiar? policing people with illegal tactics in the name of national security. and the fbi did investigate itself and wound up indicting it number two guy, also known as "deep throat." they were convicted of violating the civil rights of americans and pardoned by nixon during his -- pardoned by ronald reagan months in office. the second, the take-down of a terrorist who had been on the lam for 30 years, a bomber, lived in puerto rico and a member of the afln which conducted a number of bombings in the city of new york, as well as other areas, in the name of liberating puerto rico.

the chain of command in a lethal operation should be like the chain of command of the military. but it was screwed up beyond all recognition. the bureau's self-police are -- self-policing depends on the senior fbi members, and there is turn over, they have no effective oversight of themselves or the agents under their command over the long run. >> if there is not a political outcry to exert political pressure on the fbi after this "the new york times" scoop, i don't know -- >> it would be helpful to have a strong attorney general. >> maybe a new director of the fbi. >> there will be a new director of the fbi in september, and good luck to him.

>> tim weiner, author of among thank you, we'll be right back.

update, when president obama nominated his chief of staff to head of the treasury, we all knew that signing would be part of the agreement. his signature looks like this. there is a lot of speculation on the show how we would survive it. now we knew, because jack lew fixed the problem, making himself a new signature, just in time to take on the responsibilities at the bureau of engraving and printing. this is his signature, on the new $5 bill. the bills will hit our wallets as of this fall, thus solving the national disaster of having these words on our money, also

helping the obesity epidemic by not making us crave the cup cakes every time we decide to pay cash. every time we decide to pay cash. "first look" is up next. good thursday morning right now on "first look," shocking news out of italy late last night. 51-year-old actor james gandolfini is dead. >> i'm going to remember him as tony soprano, the character he played but also i'm going to remember him as james gandolfini, a good friend and a talented guy. >> we'll have worldwide reaction to the actor's death and the latest details. president obama returned early this morning from europe to find a slew of challenges facing him. plus, what are the rules for government drones in your neighborhood? new allegations that twa flight 800 was brought down by a