one. will he testify? will george zimmerman take the stand in his own defense? so far i've not heard any physical evidence of his life under threat. so therefore it leaves whether he felt that? well, the only one that put that evidence in is him. will he take the stand? that's what i want to know. and that's what i'll be watching for. thanks for watching. i'm al sharpton. have a good weekend. "hardball" starts right now. a good day for the defense or a wash? let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm joy reid in for chris matthews. leading off tonight, the final seconds. what happened in the last moments before the shooting death of trayvon martin? in court today, one of george zimmerman's neighbors, john good

said he heard what sounded like a fight that night and stepped outside his town house to see what was going on. what he saw, according to the neighbor, was what appeared to be zimmerman lying on his back with trayvon martin straddling and punching him. he used a mixed martial art term, ground and pound, to describe what martin was doing. good also testified there was a call for help, likely from the man at the bottom who he believed was zimmerman that was different from the testimony we heard from another neighbor yesterday who thought it was zimmerman who was on top. joining us now, arise legal contributor seema, joseph haynes davis, former federal prosecutor kendall coffey, and dana swickle. let's get into this question of who was on top. seema, yesterday we had testimony from a neighbor who they played back her very tearful 911 call. and she testified she thought the bigger man, the larger man, meaning george zimmerman was on top. today you have john good testifying he thinks that it was

george zimmerman on the bottom. it a wash? >> no, it's not. what i don't understand is don't people realize that during the wrestling, they could have switched positions? why isn't this being brought out? and i think it's a reasonable explanation for the differing statements. >> right. and kendall, that is a good point, because john good testified he saw only about ten seconds of the fight that was taking place. and so you do have these sort of cancelling one another out questions about who was on top. but why would the prosecution call a witness in the case of mr. good, who seems to be backing up the defense's contention that zimmerman was the one on the bottom of the struggle, at least at a certain point? >> well, the prosecution knew this witness was going to be testifying. they obviously knew it wasn't going to be helpful for them. they very wisely put him in their case kind of in the middle of it so that he doesn't become the critical show piece part of the defense case later on. accomplishes a couple of things.

first of all, the prosecution isn't hiding anybody. that's valuable. second, though, he is somewhat in the middle of it. the prosecution is hoping that as other things happen, the jury is going to spend less time thinking about this witness. because one thing is for sure, if during the verdict and the time of the deliberations for the verdict, if the jury keeps asking for the testimony to be read back to them of this witness, that's not a good sign for the prosecution. >> okay. really just quickly, i want to play john good's 911 call, or at least part of it so our viewers can take a listen. go ahead. >> you can hear somebody yelling for help? >> um, i'm pretty sure the guy's -- holy [ bleep ]. >> okay. we have several people calling in also. anything else that you heard? >> no. a guy yelling help. oh my god. um, no, there is a guy with a flashlight in the backyard now.

i think there is flashlights and there is a guy -- i don't know if that's a cop. oh my god. >> okay. we've had several calls. did you hear when you heard voices it was just one person -- >> there is two guys there is two guys in the backyard with flashlights. >> okay. and there is a black guy down. it looks like he has been shot and he is dead. >> okay. >> he is laying, and there is multiple people calling right now, i'm thinking. >> okay. >> i have several officers going out there, okay? >> okay, thank you. >> thank you, bye-bye. >> okay, and now i want you guys to take a look at another piece of sound from john good. and this is where it gets a little bit murkier. this is where he is attempting to describe who was hitting whom. so let's see if we have that sound about who was punching who in that fight. >> now, let's go to this case that night that you saw. the person who you now know to be trayvon martin was on top, correct? >> correct. >> and he was the one who was

raining blows down on the person on the bottom, george zimmerman, right? >> that's what it looked like. >> okay. and i said a moment ago you were literal, because you couldn't actually see fist hit face, right? >>. no. >> because it was blocked by what? >> i didn't say it was blocked. i said it was dark out. >> now defense attorney mark o'mara also asked good about who he thought was yelling. here is that sound. >> do you think it was the person on the bottom who was screaming for help? >> rationally thinking, i would think so. >> as a matter of fact, had it been trayvon martin screaming for help since his back was to you, it would have had to be going -- the yell would be going away from you, and i think you said it would have to bounce off the wall before you heard it? >> and i think it would sound different. that's why in my head i thought it was coming from the person on the bottom. >> now joseph, i want to ask you about that. because it sounds like he is saying logical inference, that's

what it could have been based on the position he saw trayvon martin in. he did not say the words "i'm sure i heard that it was the guy on the bottom, zimmerman screaming for help". >> you have to remember that night it was rang. it was dark. it's a tussle. it's a fight. it's a rumble, as we say. so that witness did the best he could. i remember him testifying that his wife didn't really want him to go outside. so he didn't want to go outside. he was doing the best he could to recollect as to what was going on. the other thing i want to point out, that also contradicts the young lady from miami who worked for construction company who testified at the end of the day the day before, which was yesterday, of course, that by and through an interpreter that all she could see was red and black, or something red and dark. and i'm paraphrasing her,

because -- and she saw that on top. in other words, that would lead one to believe that she may have saw -- may have seen mr. zimmerman on top. and, again, sometimes when testimony is being conducted through an interpreter, some communications can be misconstrued. >> and dana swickle, the other thing about john good, although he did on first blush appear to be better for the defense, he testified to what he thought were punches being thrown. but the defense has all along made the claim that trayvon martin was straddling george zimmerman and banging hi head into the ground. we still have not heard any witness so far in these two days of testimony say that they saw that. is that a problem for the defense? >> i don't think so, because when you listen to what he was saying today, the pounding -- you know, the ground and pound, and that he saw his back facing him, and he believed george zimmerman was on the bottom. and then you look at george zimmerman's injuries that are consistent with what that sounds

like, if you recall those photos of george zimmerman's head, they look like he got scratches on the back of his head. one could think that it was when his head was being pounded against the ground. that's what it looked like. it didn't look like someone punched him in the head. it looked like something dug into the back of his head, scratched his head, and that's why blood was dripping down. and there wasn't a big punch mark or a big bruise or swelling like one would get when it was hit. so i think the injuries, if they tie it together that. >> pull it together with the injuries and the consistency of the injuries with what one could believe took place, i think it's fine. >> well, except for here is the problem with that, dane. that today we had lindzee folgate, who is the person who actually treated george zimmerman. and she didn't quite say what you said. she testified to only seeing small contusions, two small contusions. and i think the prosecution, and seema, maybe you can respond to this, was pretty effective arguing that didn't look like life-threatening injuries. >> they weren't life threaten injuries, because if they were

life-threatening, he would have gone to the hospital right away. if they were life-threatening, he would have displayed some other physical signs that would have caused him to go back for medical care. >> just to reinforce, that let's play lindzee folgate testifying, just a little bit of her testifying today about what injuries she saw on george zimmerman the day after the shooting death of trayvon martin. >> based on your observations and review of those lacerations, did you feel there was anything additional that needed to be done regarding this, like any kind of stitches or anything like that? >> that determination is based on how well the skin edges are what we call approximated, which means how well are they together to begin with, and how deep is the laceration itself. based off of the approximation of the skin margins and the depth of the lacerations, i did not feel that substitute sutures were necessary. >> and later, defense attorney mark o'mara used photos to ask folgate about the severity of the head wounds. >> do you see an area up here

that seems to be misshapen? >> in the photograph, yes, i see that. >> okay. would that also be an area of swelling? >> it's normally an area of swelling. we call those scalpe hematomas. >> how does a scalp hematoma occur? >> it can oh cure through some sort of trauma to the head that resulted in the collection of blood there or fluid there. >> so dana, no sutures, two laceration. potential for it to be caused by head trauma. but that doesn't sound like what you were describing as injuries that were so grave that they could have resulted in death. it doesn't seem that this witness who treated him -- >> well, wait a second. but that's not -- but that's not what i said. you had asked me does the injuries or was there pounding, were they able to prove that he was pounding his head against the ground. >> and that's what she didn't seem to reinforce. >> yeah, but you have to also understand that there was also punching to the face as well. he had a huge broken nose, blood

coming out of there. listen, it's not a matter of did the injuries cause him to believe that he was in grave death. it was a combination of everything, taken all into consideration. it's a total package. if someone is on top of you, they're pounding you in the face, they're taking their head and they're pounding your head into the ground, sure, there may not be huge injuries on -- excuse me, on the back of his head. but if someone is punching him in the face and pounding him in the ground, you look at that a hole, not just the individual injuries themselves. >> okay. seema, dana obviously is buying into the entire theory of the defense here. but kendall, did you have a different view or seema? >> well, i'm a defense attorney. >> i think what dana is trying to say is at least the injuries on the back of mr. zimmerman's head are consistent with his story. so i think that's what dana is getting to. >> yes. >> and i think also what dana is trying to illustrate for the viewers is that these elements go to the self-defense charge

and what the defense has to show to get that charge submitted to the jury. >> and kendall, what is your response to that? if the person who treated george zimmerman essentially testified to injuries that are real, that she did see injuries, she did treat them, but she is not testifying to anything more than no stitches, two contusions, that helpful at the end of the day to proving a self-defense claim? >> well, let's combine it with the fact that zimmerman didn't go to the hospital on the critical night of the shooting. so hard to think that he really thinks he was anywhere near death. and was he facing serious bodily injury? not so sure. he goes in the next day. he doesn't need stitches for the contusions to the back of his head. and let's not lose sight of we're looking at injuries. yeah, he was injured. but he is a guy who took a gun and put it right to the chest of an unarmed person and shot and killed him. so when the jury balances out zimmerman's injury, they're going to see there was a fight. they're going to see zimmerman was getting hurt a little bit. but he killed a guy.

and is that enough injury, enough to justify self-defense? i don't think the defense is there yet. they scored some points today, but i certainly don't think they're out of the woods. >> okay. well, on that note, we'll be back with the panel to talk about rachel jeantel's testimony and the way race and sculpture are playing and how the public is reacting to it. this is "hardball," the place for politics. "i'm part of an american success story," "that starts with one of the world's most advanced distribution systems," "and one of the most efficient trucking networks,"

"with safe, experienced drivers." "we work directly with manufacturers," "eliminating costly markups," "and buy directly from local farmers in every region of the country." "when you see our low prices, remember the wheels turning behind the scenes, delivering for millions of americans, everyday. "dedication: that's the real walmart" after the supreme court's decision this week that effectively struck down california's ban on same-sex marriage, the big question was about timing, and when gay marriages could resume in the nation's largest state. today we get the answer, immediately. that's the word from a federal appeals court which has dissolved the stay blocking same-sex marriage from proceeding. and look what california attorney general kamala harris just tweeted. on my way to sf city hall. let the wedding bells ring. harris says she'll be marrying the prop 8 plaintiffs kristen perry. we'll be right back.

welcome back to "hardball." a focal point of the george zimmerman trial so far has been rachel jeantel, a friend of trayvon martin's, who has been described as the prosecution's key witness. she was on the phone with him just before he was killed. defense attorney don west spent hours over the course of two days, trying to discredit jeantel. and while he did succeed in poking holes in some aspects of her story, such as whether she told an attorney for the martin family that she heard trayvon martin yell "get off, get off" during the confrontation, the core of what she said all along has remained consistent, that on the night of his death, trayvon was being followed by a man who turned out to be george zimmerman. still, a lot of the attention on jeantel has had to do with her demeanor, her diction, and the slang she used. and that has raised some tough questions about the role race and culture will play in how the jury responds. for more on that we're still joined by our panel of experts, seema iyer, kendall coffey and

dana swickle. there was a lot of conversation about the way rachel jeantel sounded. how important is that going to be in this case? because for getting all the social media talk, the jury has to evaluate her too. >> race, culture, politics always come into play when picking a jury and when presenting your witnesses. what disturbs me is that there is so much negative attention around this young lady, and we are not giving these jurors enough credit. the conversation, at least on social media is this divide, this lack of connection between those juries and that young lady. why do we assume that just a bunch of white people can't connect with racial jeantel? why are we thinking so little? this -- her demeanor is arguably good for the prosecution, bad for the defense, or vice versa. her demeanor is her.

she was authentic. she was honest. and just because you tell a few lies outside the courtroom, like we do every single day doesn't mean that you're not being honest inside the courtroom. i don't think any of us in good conscience can say that that young lady was not presenting herself honestly. >> but kendall, at the same time now, she did stick to the core of her story, which was that it was trayvon martin that was being followed, that he was not the person that confronted george zimmerman. that part holds. but it is problematic that the way she comes across could simply cause whatever she said to be rejected by the jury, and was it a mistake therefore for the prosecution not to try to get more ethnic balance on that jury during the voir dire? >> well, i think the prosecution got the best jury they could under the circumstances. jury selection is not just a game of guesswork, it's a game of chance. and the folks come through. you do the best you can. but here is what is different about a murder trial. this is not a jury that is just going to shut off because there

is a key witness that is maybe different than most of the folks that they know. i think this jury was working very hard and very attentively to get to the bottom of what she was saying. they know how important this. is. and as you noted, the essential elements of her testimony stayed together and rang true. i think where this jury is right now after the first week, they're probably uncertain about a lot of things. they may not be sure what to make of rachel jeantel. but they believe trayvon martin was followed, was pursued by george zimmerman. and whatever else after that happened came about because george zimmerman ignore addis patcher and went looking for this guy. >> because of the focus on jeantel, i want to play just a little bit of sound from it. let's take a look at this exchange with the defense attorney. >> of course, you don't know if he was telling you the truth or not. >> why you need to lie about that, sir? >> maybe if he decided to assault george zimmerman, he didn't want you to know about

it? >> that's absolutely retarded, sir. >> i'm sorry? >> that's really retarded to do that, sir. >> dana, there are some people who criticized don west for being really tough in rachel jeantel on how he questioned her. how tough to go given the age of the person on the witness stand and given the way that you as the attorney, as well as the person on the stand has to come across? >> i think as a defense attorney as it relates to each and every witness, you start off with a game plan. you start off with i'm going to go this way, i'm not going to be difficult, i'm going to be difficult. if they give me a hard time, i'm going to try to keep my cool. but we are talking about a murder trial here. we do have a man's life on the line. and i think what really went on is i think he intended to start off being not necessarily nice, because that's not his job, and you know what? it is his job to be somewhat tough on her. and it is his job to try to catch her in lies and make her probably make mistakes on jury stand. and you know what? maybe a part of his job is to

get the jury to dislike her. so i think what happens is as you're questioning a witness, depending on how it's going, i think that's when you do your game plan and you manipulate her, you maneuver along the way. i don't think he was too hard on her. i think he did what he needed to do. i think he tried his best. and you know, with this particular witness, you either love her or you hate her. you either think she was authentic or you thought that she was rude. but it just depends on each and every juror. you would be surprised what the jurors are probably thinking. we all think we know what they're thinking, but i guarantee you they're thinking other points. >> that's a really good point because there really were polarized reactions to rachel jeantel. there were some people who thought look, she is really authentic. she was being herself. her first language was creole and she also speaks spanish and english was the third language she learned. she certainly wasn't dumb because she was listening to she was asked and sticking to her story. is race really the elephant in the room in the way that people

perceive this young woman? >> race is indeed immutable. but you have to remember also the judge, judge nelson, deborah nelson, who is just an outstanding judge in the 18th judicial circuit of seminole county issued an order that race could not be used in this trial in terms of using it to quote/unquote talk about the profiling effect. now, with that being said, we don't know what is going on in the jury's mind. again, we're not psychologists, psychiatrists and so forth. and to not give credit to folks who are sworn, to carry out their duties as jurors, i sometimes have a problem with that because i still believe in the individual citizen of this country to do their sworn duty to look at the evidence solely what is admitted solely, and that is it.

>> and seema, not to have you play social critic here, but this has actually gone beyond the jury. the jury is sequestered. they're not seeing sort of all of the other stuff that is going on. >> sure. >> but on social media you had lo lo jones come out and tweet that she is like medea, the tyler perry character, that he dresses in drag. you had some really insulting things said about her as a person. >> right. some harsh, harsh criticism. and now can we please understand why rachel jeantel spent so much time hiding from this case? look at what it's done to her. for any of us, to be in the spectacle, not just of the nation, the world is actually watching this case. and look at -- her life at this point is irreparable there is nothing that she can do to get over the stigma of what this case has done to her. so now we should forgive so much of all the inconsistencies at this point that the defense is trying to bring out. >> and kendall -- >> i just want to jump back in

for one thing that i was not age to say, joy. the fact of the matter is all of those critics, any of those critics who are able to say and set forth that i speak three languages. i have spoken three languages since a child. i think i speak three languages fluently. i mean, you know, you can act like i'm great because i speak the king's language and have that air about me, but demonstrate that you are not bilateral, trilingual in this environment, and i think that's representative of the multicultural environment that south florida and miami presents to the world in terms of those of african descent. because you have african-haitians, afro cubans, afro venezuelans, afro jamaicans, afro bahamians, afro

hondurasians. it's a melting pot that is actually beautiful and adds to the beauty of this great nation. that should be embraced. >> okay. we're going to have more on the zimmerman trial in a minute with our panel. this is "hardball," the place for politics. is like hammering. riding against the wind. uphill. every day. we make money on saddles and tubes. but not on bikes. my margins are thinner than these tires. anything that gives me some breathing room makes a difference.

membership helps make the most of your cashflow. i'm nelson gutierrez of strictly bicycles and my money works as hard as i do. this is what membership is. this is what membership does. [ agent smith ] i've found software that intrigues me. it appears it's an agent of good. ♪ [ agent smith ] ge software connects patients to nurses to the right machines while dramatically reducing waiting time. [ telephone ringing ] now a waiting room is just a room. [ static warbles ]

[ 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. ♪ welcome back to "hardball." we've talked about the demeanor of witnesses. now let's look at the demeanor of some of the attorneys, particularly don west and mark o'mara, both for the defense. first, here is west with rachel jeantel yesterday. >> trayvon got hit. >> you don't know that, do you? >> no, sir. >> you don't know that trayvon got hit. >> he couldn't -- he had to -- >> you don't know that trayvon didn't at that moment take his fist and drive it into george zimmerman's face. >> please lower your voice. >> do you? >> no, sir. >> and contrast that with the defense attorney mark o'mara today as he began questioning witness jonathan good. >> morning, sir.

>> morning. >> don't really want to be here, do you? >> i guess it has to be done. >> sure. you were very reluctant to be involved in the case at all, correct? >> correct. >> how does an attorney's demeanor affect not just how the jury sees the attorney, but more importantly, how the jury views the witnesses? we're back with iyer, joseph haynes davis, kendall coffey. does it seem like they're maying a little good cop/bad cop, or this is a question of witness we like, witness we're not so keen on? >> you know, i think that's possible. i think that don west had a job. i think he tried to do what he could. did he seem a little bit aggressive? i'm sure he was. but he was trying to get the point across that most people i think could be missing at this point because they're focusing so much on everyone's demeanor. no one really knows what

happened when they confronted each other. no one knows who threw the first blow. no one knows how it escalated. nobody knows. and no one can say that. and i think that's a very important point. and i think probably by the time he was questioning her at that moment, he probably just got so frustrated and was just wanting to pound that one point home. she didn't know if trayvon threw the first punch. she didn't know if it was zimmerman who did. she didn't know. and so what seemed to be aggressive might not have been. and then you have a mark o'mara. it was a completely different witness. what that witness was testifying to could have helped the defense. so i don't think that they were good cop/bad cop. i think it's just once again how you treat a witness because how things are going and what they're saying. >> and whether they're helpful to you. >> and i hate to butt. in let me just say this for the viewers. the fact of the matter is that witness was a defense witness. the young man, mr. -- >> well, he was called by the

prosecution. >> he was called by the prosecution because the prosecution wanted to take the air out of a defense witness. but when on cross by mr. o'mara, because it's his witness, the fact of the matter is he is going to treat him differently. on the other hand, with my esteemed kocolleague mr. west, has an ethical professional duty to zealously advocate for the accused. that's the cornerstone of our constitution. now, would i have liked to see him be light were ms. jeantel? of course i would, because i'm human like everybody else. but at the end of the day, we have the accused. the accused has to prove nothing. the prosecution has to prove everything. and he is entitled to a zealous defense, and that is indeed what he is getting. >> seema, don west may have been trying to do something else too we were just talking at the break about. he asked ms. jeantel on the second day, on day two of her

testimony, you seem a little different. your demeanor seems different. what do you think was going on? >> everybody wanted to know what was behind that question. i will tell you. mr. west was trying to get at whether rachel jeantel was coached by the prosecution that evening. now, here is the rule. prosecutors cannot talk to their witnesses when they're on cross-examination. same thing for the defense. the bottom line is if you -- if you're testifying, joy, and you're on cross, and i called you to the stand, i cannot talk to you when you are on cross. what we think happened is that ms. jeantel's lawyer, he probably said to her, okay, let's bring it down a few notches. >> right. >> throw in a few more sirs, stay calm, and just be prepared for a long time. >> and i'll give the final comment to you, kendall. we are talking a lot about the demeanor of the attorneys because it does sort of play into the end result with the jury. they have to at some level trust at least if not like the attorneys. and it's interesting, because this is a case that is sort of in reverse, where you have the

aggressiveness really coming from the defense, not from the prosecutors. >> well, jurors don't have to love lawyers. they have to find that they're credible. and i think, frankly, all the lawyers in the courtroom are doing that so far. as lawyers, we all talk about the lawyers and are they being lovable and are they being clever or glib. but at the end of the day, this jury is trying desperately to get it right. this is in many ways certainly the most important, highly visible decision they'll ever make in their lives. so they're paying a lot more attention to the witnesses and trying to find out what really happened on that night. >> and kendall, one other quick question to you about rachel jeantel and the way she was prepared by the prosecution. they interviewed her before. bernie de la rionda had interviewed her before. they knew she had limited english proficient it is. would it have been smarter for them to use an interpreter with her rather than allow to her to go on the stand for those two long, excruciating days of testimony? >> i don't think so. because interpreters seem to create just such a barrier. for better for bitter, she came

off as real. and i think ultimately on the essential points of her testimony, she was believable. i'm not sure where the jury is on her statement that it was trayvon who said get off, but the rest of what she had to say that was significant, i think the jury believed her. >> thank you, seema iyer, joseph haynes davis, kendall coffey and dana fickle. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics. there is a pursuit we all share. a better life for your family, a better opportunity for your business, a better legacy to leave the world. we have always believed in this pursuit, striving to bring insight to every investment, and integrity to every plan. we are morgan stanley. and we're ready to work for you. what makes the sleep number store different?

what makes the sleep you walk into a conventional mattress store, it's really not about you. they say, "well, if you wanted a firm bed you can lie on one of those. we provide the exact individualization that your body needs. oh, yeah! once you experience it, there's no going back. while we make room for our latest innovations, save $500 to $800 on the closeout of our memory foam and iseries bed sets. plus, free shipping-for five days only! only at the sleep number store. sleep number. comfort individualized. congestion, for it's smog. but there are a lot of people that do ride the bus. and now that the busses are running on natural gas, they don't throw out as much pollution to the earth. so i feel good.

i feel like i'm doing my part to help out the environment. [ male announcer ] introducing red lobster's seaside mix & match. combine any two from a wide variety of seven exciting choices on one plate! all for just $12.99, but only for a limited time. i'm stewart harrington, and i sea food differently.

i'm craig melvin. here is what is happening right now. president obama is in south africa today. the trip comes as nelson mandela remains in critical yet stable condition there. president obama is not expected to visit the ailing leader tonight. florida police have arrested ernest wallace. wallace is a third suspect now connected to the murder case against nfl star aaron

hernandez. and a blistering heatwave is searing the west. extreme heat warnings are posted in five states. temperatures in california's death valley hit just shy of 130 degrees. back to "hardball." back to "hardball," and now to the sideshow. first, an unlikely winner in the 11th hour filibuster we saw this week from texas democratic state senator wendy davis, who took to the senate floor to stall a vote on an extremely restrictive abortion bill. ms. davis is getting a lot of praise these days, but as it turns out, so are the sneakers she wore that night. amazon reviews have been through the roof. not only do they provide support for your arches, they support a woman's right to her own body. they make a real statement. i'll be ordering a second pair and third. think about your daughters and

keep these shoes available for them so that they can choose when and where and how to wear them. next, last night in the senate, the senate passed a sweeping immigration reform bill that creates a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented individuals in the united states. the final tally was 68-32 in favor, but it was almost slightly different thanks to this slip-up from kansas republican jerry moran. >> mr. moran. >> aye -- i'm sorry, no. >> yep, jerry moran almost wound up on the winning side of the vote, entirely by accident. twitter was all over the gaffe with journalist ryan teague beckwith saying senator jerry moran of kansas can now argue on immigration that he was for it before he was against it. next, it's a question many of us have been struggling with for years, or at least the "sesame street" fans among us. bert and ernie, gay couple? the "new yorker" magazine seemed to think so. check out this latest cover. bert and ernie watching the

supreme court justices on tv and snuggling it. the cover is called bert and ernie's moment of joy. aww. as puppets, bert and ernie are without a sexual orientation, important to note. now to the flip side of the supreme court decision on doma. far-right televangelist pat robertson for one is flummoxed by the news, particularly the fact that justice kennedy was on the side of striking down doma. >> let me ask you about anthony kennedy. does he have some clerks that happen to be gays? >> robertson's guest wasn't sure, but for the record, there is a decent chance that kennedy does have lgbt colleagues on his staff, as does his colleagues. as reported earlier this month, openly gay law clerk are common in the chambers of liberal and conservative justices. so as pat robertson suggests, the supreme court is basically the same as every other workplace. also, it's 2013. this may have been my first time doing the sideshow, but it's the

last time for sideshow producer for mary alice amon who is moving on to bigger things. we wish her the best of luck. and when we come back, why so many house republicans think it would be good politics for them to kill immigration reform once and for all. this is "hardball," the place for politics. i did? when visa signature asked everybody what upgraded experiences really mattered... you suggested luxury car service instead of "strength training with patrick willis." come on todd! flap them chicken wings. [ grunts ] well, i travel a lot and umm... [ male announcer ] at visa signature, every upgraded experience comes from listening to our cardholders. visa signature. your idea of what a card should be.

visa signature. and we were out on the streets. the house caught fire and we were out on the streets. [ whispering ] shhh. it's only a dream. and we have home insurance. but if we made a claim, our rate would go up... [ whispering ] shhh. you did it right. you have allstate claim rate guard so your rates won't go up just because of a claim. [ whispering ] are we still in a dream? no, you're in an allstate commercial. so get allstate home insurance with claim rate guard... [ whispering ] goodnight. there are so many people in our bedroom. [ dennis ] talk to an allstate agent... [ doorbell rings ] ...and let the good life in. we've got new polling from the key swing state of ohio, and it looks like a tight race for president in 2016. let's check the "hardball" scoreboard. according to a new poll from

quinnipiac, hillary clinton is tied with new jersey governor chris christie in a hypothetical matchup in the buckeye state. it's clinton, 42. christie, 42. and again, senator rand paul, clinton has a four point lead. if joe biden is the democratic nominee, he would lose to rand paul by 9, 49-40, by four. ouch. wrap. how can you get back pain relief that lasts up to 16 hours? with thermacare heatwraps. the only wrap with patented heat cells that penetrate deep to relax, soothe, and unlock tight muscles. and now, introducing reusable thermacare cold wraps. pain relief without the shock of ice.

... you thought wrong. seize the summer with up to 50% off hotels at travelocity. because all these whole grains aren't healthy unless you actually eat them ♪ multigrain cheerios. also available in delicious peanut butter. healthy never tasted so sweet.

the bill is generated a level of support that we believe will be impossible for the house to ignore. >> to our friends in the house, we ask for your consideration,

and we stand ready to sit down and negotiate with you. >> to our friends in the house, i understand that you may have a different approach. speak with your voice. speak in a way that you feel comfortable. just don't ignore the issue. that's all i ask. >> welcome back. that was just a sampling from members of the senate's gang of eight reacting to the passage of their immigration bill late yesterday. as you saw there, republican lindsey graham is urging his republican colleagues in the house to make their voices heard when it comes to the senate bill. well, here is what they're saying about it. house majority leader eric cantor says he can't even tell you what is in the bill. mick mulvaney in south carolina says the house should fold it up into a paper airplane and throw it out the window. ted poe, the chairman of the house immigration caucus is calling the bill irrelevant. and representative roskam says it's a pipe dream to think the bill is going to the house familiar. jonathan allen is the senior washington correspondent and

david corn is an msnbc political analyst with mother jones. thanks both of you for being here. >> thank you, joy. >> i want to start with you, david. the house doesn't have, obviously, the same political incentive, the same sort of personal incentives to embrace immigration reform that the senate does, right? house members are in districts that are largely homogeneous. they could actually survive without immigration reform. so what leverage do senators have to get the house to even take up the bill, let alone pass it? >> i think almost none. they have the power of persuasion, that's it. remember, on the senate side, while it seemed to be an overwhelming victory with 68 votes, only 14 senate republicans felt any pressure, pressure from gop elites who want this taken care of, pressure from back home to go along with the compromise to give republicans what they wanted in border security. a majority of senate republicans said no. and if you can compare the house republicans to the senate republicans, you're going from like neanderthals to homo

sapiens. so you're getting further to the right, further towards crazytown, further towards more extreme conservatism. i don't really see them looking at the vote in the senate and saying oh, because john mccain and 13 others, you know, went for this, i feel pressure. and as you noted, they're not getting a lot of pressure from the districts that they come from, thanks to gerrymandering. >> even when you look at the senate, i was struck by the pictures of all of the senators coming out. you had chuck schumer, you had lindsey graham. you of course had john mccain who has kind of taken over as the face of the bill. but you didn't see marco rubio, for whom this was supposed to be a defining issue. where on earth is marco rubio, and why isn't he taking a victory lap? >> a couple of things on that. if this is a defining issue for marco rubio, it's going to make it hard for him to win a republican primary in 2016 should he choose to do that. and number two, like the senators had asked president obama to stay out of this so that it wasn't politicized as they tried to get a deal, i

think senators mccain and schumer would do best to stay out of trying to persuade house republicans, because those are the two of the senators that house republicans like the least. >> right. >> if they want to get a deal done, chuck schumer and done, chuck seemer and john mccain aren't the face of getting john boehner and eric cantor and others off the ball. >> jonathan makes a really good point, who the salesman is really does seem to matter, right? initially it was thought marco rubio was the right salesman because he himself is latino, a tea party favorite at one point. he was seen as the right salesman as long as barack obama didn't go anywhere near him. now really who in the senate is credible? the rand pauls and ted cruzs of the world didn't vote for the bill. is there anyone in the senate since it's not those guys who can actually sell this bill? >> look at the senate leadership. mitch mcconnell and others. they all ran from this bill, too. "a" i don't know if there's anyone in the senate who house republicans truly respect. "b," if there is, that person didn't vote for the bill. so this bill from the house republican perspective, i think

you saw that reflected in the quotes you put forward, is sort of an orphan. you go to a house which is fractious and there's no strong leadership coming and i feel like games of thrones here. the house of boehner. it can destroy things but it cannot build. and that's what we're going to see as the house turns to immigration. i don't see boehner being able to sort of put together anything that's comprehensive, that brings, you know, two sides, let alone, a side and a half, together. >> i want to read a quick quote from "new york" magazine. he writes there's a way around the house immigration problem, it's called the discharge position. if 218 members of the house sign one, the bill automatically comes to the house floor for a vote. democrats only have 201 votes and would need 17 republicans to join them plus every single one of the democrat. is that the way that boehner can actually get this done, jonathan? can, can we find all the democrats getting together and 17 republicans who would go for a discharge position and force

this thing on to the house floor? >> there are two procedural issues that i think people who are watching this debate are going to become very familiar with very fast. one of them is the discharge petition. house democratic leaders and members of the congressional hispanic caucus are talking right now about possibly forwarding a discharge position. according to my sources. however, if they were to get republicans to sign on to that discharge position, what we've seen in the past is the majority leadership, whether it's democratic or republican, would then put that bill through the rules committee, have an amendment process, and it wouldn't look anything like that senate bill. you would have, again, something that looked much more like boehner wanted. the other procedural issue you're going to hear a lot about called a blue slip. under the constitution, all revenue measures must originate in the house. >> right. >> you're starting to hear house republicans say, look, the senate bill has some penalties, some fines in it that constitute revenue measures and the house ought to reject it, send it right back to the senate because of those. that's going to be something for the parliamentarians to figure

out, for the house to potentially vote upon. you're going to hear about the blue slip in the discharge position. you asked about the discharge position. i don't see it coming up the way that jonathan suggests. >> jonathan, wouldn't it be easier for the house to write a bill? >> yes, i think that's exactly what's going to happen. what's going to happen is the house is going to write several bills and none of them are likely to have the path to citizenship or certainly not the type of path to citizenship that the senate has. once the house passes anything, even if it's just a border security bill, then the two houses can go to conference. i think that's why you heard senators graham and mccain and schumer say they just don't want the house to ignore this. please do something. >> right. >> once they do something, they get into a conference, you move the process along and it's harder for the house to stop it. >> i say what's interesting here, there are so many house republicans, at least enough house republicans who don't want to see what i'm couldi icalling marco path or rubio path. they may not vote for any bill,

even without one because they don't want to go to conference. there's a whole interesting dynamic with that. because they feel that the house republican leadership might sell them out in conference. >> right. >> so there are a lot of permutations to come here. if you had a discharge position, those 17 republicans would really be -- it would be in essence a mutiny against john boehner. i don't see it happening. at the same time, if it did happen, the democrats would get all the accolades and credit for passing this, and the republicans would still be in the doghouse with latino voters so it doesn't help the karl rove problem. >> it will be mutiny with it might bring down john boehner. you have republicans on the right saying this could cost him his speakership. they don't want any bill at all. jonathan allen and david corn. and we'll be right back after this. why let constipation weigh you down?

as soon as you feel it, try miralax. it works differently than other laxatives. it draws water into your colon to unblock your system naturally. don't wait to feel great. miralax. take the miralax pledge to feel better sooner. get a reward like a beauty treatment, a dance class or a $5 gift card with purchase of a specially marked pack. go to miralax.com for details. 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. otherworldly things. but there are some things i've never seen before. this ge jet engine can understand 5,000 data samples per second. which is good for business. because planes use less fuel,

spend less time on the ground and more time in the air. suddenly, faraway places don't seem so...far away. ♪

let me finish tonight with this. decision time for the gop. the supreme court and the united states senate this week put a historic menu of options if front of the republican party. first the court. by eviscerating the voting rights act and slamming the door on 50 years of federal protection of this fundamental right of citizenship, the court has left it to congress to decide which states are interfering with voting rights and which states are not. many states are already rushing to enact voter i.d. laws and

redistricting plans that will disadvantage black and hispanic voters. will republicans in congress step in and salvage what's left of the votie ining rights act o it die? also by striking down the defense of marriage act and california's prop 8, the court created two kinds of gay marriage. one for the 12 states, soon to be 13 with california, where gay couples and enjoy the full rights and responsibilities of marriage fully recognized by the federal government, and 38 that are separate and unequal. republicans who are in charge of many of those states and who control the house will have to decide whether they can build their party with young americans without evolving on marriage. on immigration, the senate has passed the baton of reform to the house where the tea party is in control of john boehner instead of the other way around. can boehner and the same wing of the gop get around the refusenics and let their party embrace immigration reform and give their party a fighting chance with hispanic voters?

at some point republicans have to demonstrate they're more than the party of repealing obama care and legislating women's reproduction if they want to survive as a national party. that's all for "hardball" this week. chris matthews will return on monday. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. good evening, from new york, i'm chris hayes. listen to me. it is a summer friday night, and we have two big pieces of breaking news to tell you about. the first, the u.s. ninth circuit court of appeals has just cleared the way for same-sex marriages to resume in california. chris perry and sandy styer, the plaintiffs in the california prop 8 case, just got married in san francisco city hall with a bunch of on lookers and we are hoping we have one or both of them shortly. of course, this decision originally the prop 8 being passed in california had meant