documents from the governor's new chief of staff. >> it's been a rough couple weeks for new jersey governor chris christie. >> whatever test they put in front of me, i will meet those tests. >> he's hired his own outside counsel. >> people aren't necessarily believing that he didn't know about bridgegate. >> the third of those we surveyed say he's lying. >> when you take that oath, the tag line on the end is not "if everything goes the way it's supposed to." >> if he's telling the truth, he's good. if not, he's gone. >> if tag line at the end is "so help me god." >> one week after governor chris christie's 107-minute press conference on the bridgegate scandal, the political drama continues to unfold in the garden state. moments ago a special committee investigating the jersey traffic snarl and the ensuing allegations convened for the very first time. the committee is issuing subpoenas, possibly one for christie's former deputy chief

of staff bridget "time for some traffic problems "kelly and another for christie's former campaign manager, bill steppian. these are unlikely to be the last or worst probes in the investigation. moments ago, we confirmed what nbc news originally reported, that as many as 20 people including individuals and campaign organizations may be subpoenaed. by the looks of it, this is shaping up to be something of a legal battle royale. on the new jersey assembly side, reed shar, the former federal prosecutor who put illinois governor rod blagojevich behind bars for 14 years. on the governor's side, cristy has hired longtime rudy giuliani legal eagle randy mas mastro. if his law firm is any indication how tough the fight may be, his home page reads, when your back is against the wall, there is always a way out. christie is looking for a way out but also a way to keep himself very, very busy. this morning the governor met

with home owners affected by hurricane sandy. a few hours later he had a surprise visit from a group of jazzercisers. this weekend he'll travel to florida to fund raise for governor rick scott and meet with top gop donors. next week he plans to throw a second inauguration party on el liles island. for a man facing not one, not two, but three investigations into the conduct of his administration, chris christie is still finding time to be chris christie. joining me now is the host of msnbc's "up," steven kornacki, and from trenton, new jersey, nbc news national investigative correspondent michael isikoff. michael, the breaking news out of this committee meeting they may seek up to 20 subpoenas, 17 for individual, three for organizations. you were first reporting this. this would seem to dramatically change the scope of this investigation. >> absolutely. and it really was a surprise. as recently as yesterday wisniewski was talking about

only two subpoenas, documents and e-mails from bridget kelly, the former deputy chief of staff, and bill steppian, the former campaign manager. after getting advice from this newly hired special counsel, reed shar, who put rod blagojevich in jail, they decided to dramatically expand the scope of this subpoena list. we went from 2 to 20, and that's 17 individuals, 3 entities including campaign organizations, christie's re-election campaign is one of them. clearly an escalation. i should point out that after the committee met already we started hearing objections from republicans who are raising questions about the wording of the resolution, in particular one section that gives wisniewski, who's been outspoken in his criticism of the governor, sole custody and control over the subpoenaed

documents. republicans say that's unfair. it doesn't give them equal access to the material that's coming in. and probably most significantly, minority leader brannick, who appeared in this brief conference, was asked as he was walking out, is this an appropriate investigation at this point in your mind, and he said it's not an appropriate resolution. we'll wait and see if it's an appropriate investigation. now, that's significant because as you know christie has said he'll cooperate with appropriate inquiries, leaving the option open to claim that this one is not. >> one would assume that use of "appropriate" was very specific. michael, chris christie, if we know anything about him, he does not take a fight laying down. what do we make of randy mastro being retained? how hard will they fight this? you're saying the pushback is already beginning on the proposed subpoenas. they haven't announced the names of those subpoenas yet. how much leeway do they have here in terms of fight back?

>> reporter: well, what's interesting is, look, randy mastro, as you pointed out by reading what's on his website, is is known as a fighter. when you hire gibson dunn and hire him, you're going to push back, aggressively fight. you would resist turning over documents, all sorts of privileges could be cited. but christie's in a difficult situation because politically he has to get beyond this. any attempt to claim privilege to resist any subpoenas, he's immediately going to have to raise questions about the words in his state of the state saying he will cooperate. so he can't get beyond this if he's perceived as pushing back and fight too hard. i think they're trying to walk a fine line. christie with coordination of the republicans, whether direct or indirect, are trying to walk a fine line here. >> nbc's michael is sofikoff, t you.

steven kornacki, when i began watching this press conference, they started talking about the lane closures. it is remarkable how this seemingly small thing has exploded into what can only be termed a fiasco. your reaction about the fact that now organizations are going to be receiving subpoenas including christie's campaign organization, as michael isikoff just reported. and 17 individuals. if you are in the christie camp right now, how are you feeling? >> i think there's a couple things going on and to keep in mind. one that maybe gets overlooked is there's a tension and a dynamic between the assembly and the senate democrats. the democrats control both chambers but the dynamics are a little different on both sides. the senate president is steve sween sweeney, a democrat. very close to chris christie personally and is also politically been aligned with him. a bloc of pro christie democrats from south jersey and their boss is close to chris christie. there's been concern when you

talk to people on the assembly side about how interested is the senate really in getting to the bottom of this. there's some concern you have these dueling investigations going on, a bunch of subpoenas come out of this assembly committee, then the senate committee, does it give the administration an opportunity to go go into court and say this is an undue burden. the legislature should be acting as one. one set of rules here, one there, asking the same individuals to turn over the same information. the legislature needs to get its act together before anybody should be asked to turn anything over. that can draw the process out. the other factor is does this become a mess where then might the u.s. attorney paul fishman step in and says i'll take this over. for good and for bad it won't be the same as a chris christie investigation when he was u.s. attorney. >> let me ask you, do you think at this point, we've seen such a coming-out from the woodwork of all these sort of democrats, local officials, state official,

who said chris christie was -- he didn't treat me right after i didn't endorse him. there's been allegations that he's misused funds, et cetera. do you think that loyalty, bipartisan loyalty to chris christie from some of the democrats you just named will trump what is i think largely seen as, you know, a bandwagon for democrats to get onto both plum the depths of corruption here and neutralize chris christie as a political force? >> again, let's see. if you were having this conversation with me ten days ago the conversation would have been the democrats in the new jersey state legislature were about to cut him to the quick of a lifetime. there was all sorts of suspicion then. everybody in trenton knew about it. but the democrats by and large, not all of them, but those in power were content to let the clock run out and let this go. if there are openings along the way from now until whenever for them to do the same, i can't

tell you exactly what they might be and they may not ever appear. i think it's worth keeping in mind that the powerful democrats in trenton who have been aligned with chris christie the past four years were ready to let the clock run out until last week. if they get another chance, to i would not be surprised if they do it again. >> on that note, because chris christie is obviously continuing with the affairs of the state, going to raise money this weekend, which of course is an affair of the new jersey state, perhaps his own state as a would-be candidate, but he's talking about planning the second inauguration, going through with the day to day activities. how much is all of this gumming up the works in a practical sense from your sources in new jersey? are people sort of still cooperating with the administration as they would have a month ago? >> yeah. those tests haven't come yet and those tests i think are going to come in the months ahead. again, the question is, how much more do you learn? how much more comes out? if these subpoenas go out and if they get the answers they're looking for in these subpoenas i think expectation is one way or

the other people are going to have a sense of where the scandal is going in terms of its momentum pretty quickly if there's compliance with the subpoenas. if they get a bunch of new information and it says, wow, this thing has widened by a factor of four or five, i think that political support across the board stars to erode. but if those subpoenas go out and they get replies and there's not much new, he can start to get more back to business as usual. but everybody right now is waiting to see what is the next batch of revelations. the christie people are hoping they're tame or somehow they can keep those from getting out there. >> it is shocking new developments today, again, 20 subpoenas being issued, 17 for individual, 3 for organizations including chris christie's campaign organization. steven kornacki, i know you'll be following this intently, more so and more intent intel generally than i will be. it is an unfolding saga, whatever you want to call it, chris christie is the main

character. thanks for your time. catch steve on the weekends. >> we'll talk about hit the weekend. >> i bet you will. >> do a segment or two. >> we will continue to keep an eye on the news out of trenton throughout the hour. coming up, twin brothers and rising stars. one is a u.s. congressman, the tore mayor of san antonio. i'll talk to representative joaquin castro and mayor julian castro about the future of immigration reform. first, tomorrow, president obama is due to lay out changes to our national surveillance programs. what is he going to do? i'll talk to "the new york times" peter baker. [ female announcer ] when you're serious about fighting wrinkles,

turn to roc® retinol correxion®. one week, fine lines appear to fade. one month, deep wrinkles look smoother. after one year, skin looks ageless. high performance skincare™ only from roc®.

[ female announcer ] aaah, the amazing, delicious cinnamon and sugar taste of cinnamon toast crunch and cold milk. ♪ cinnamon toast crunch. bulldog: out with the old out with the old and in with the new! mattress discounters' year end clearance sale ends monday! puppy: what's this red tag mean? bulldog: through monday, save up to 40% on clearance mattresses. puppy: oh, here's another. bulldog: that means up to $300 off serta, posturepedic, even tempur-pedic. puppy: i found another red tag! bulldog: what! where? puppy: right here, silly. ha-ha-ha! bulldog: tickles! mattress discounters' year end clearance sale

ends monday. ♪ mattress discounters in a speech at the department of justice tomorrow,

president obama will deliver a highly anticipated response to the nsa secrets leaked by edward snowden, an outline of reforms to american surveillance programs. according to details first reported by "the new york times" peter baker, the president will deliver a speech that leaves in place many current programs but embraces the spirit of reform and keeps the door open to changes later. on the reform side, mr. obama plans to increase limbs on access to bulk phone data, privacy safeguards for foreigners and propose the creation of a public advocate to represent privacy concerns at a secret intelligence corps. he is also expected to offer privacy proposals in the wake of damaging revelations that the u.s. spied on the personal communications of several world lead rs. critics argue the charges are largely cosmetic and that bulk data phone records with will continue. the president will not adopt most of the recommendations

released by a white house task force. phone records will not be handed over to private companies. the president will not put a civilian in charge of the nsa. he has rejected calls to split the security agency from cyber command, and the fbi will still be allowed in most cases to obtain americans' personal records and communications without court approval. president obama is expected to ask congress to make many of the toughest decisions in balancing liberty in the age of terror. so far capitol hill has proven fertile ground for debate. >> we do need reforms. that's the most important thing. we need good intelligence to protect united states. but we don't need to. >> on every single american. we e haven't had a single instance where this bulk collection has stopped an attack even though we're constantly having attacks planned against the united states. >> for a president caught in the crosshairs between privacy

advocates, a restive democratic base, the intelligence community, and its sup pottportn congress, the coming weeks will probably call for a stiff upper lip. joining me is the white house correspondent for "the new york times" peter baker. thanks for joining us. no better person to talk to about this. congrats on breaking what i think is important and valuable information as we talk about what needs to be done or doesn't need to be done in terms of surveillance. i ask you, someone that knows this white house pretty well, did any part of what the president is going to propose to you tomorrow surprise you? was any out of character? the list seemed very much down the middle, nothing too extreme, yet nothing completely insignificant. >> he's trying to straddle a difficult line here, obviously, one that goes far enough in change at least in tone and procedure and transparency to give some comfort to civil liberties advocates and others in america who are concerned about the revelation that edward

snowden as provided without going so far to create a rupture in the national security agencies which were worried they'd be handcuffed in purr suge terrorists. it's a tough line for any president to approach. it looks different from the point of view of the oval office than it does when you're a candidate runnings for office. >> of all the things he may discuss tomorrow, the creation of a privacy advocate so there is an adversarial process at the support, seems to be the biggest one. how much of a beating do you think the white house is going to get from the intelligence community, from national security hawks on that provision specifically? >> well, it's a great question. up until now of course the secret court meets and the -- or considers the request of the government and there's nobody else ho who had a chance to argue the opposite side. this is an opportunity or the people who think the government's gone too far to go before a judge and say here's why the government shouldn't be approved in these cases.

question is how far will the president go in creating such an advocate. will the current advocate there independent of the court be able to intervene in cases across the board or something more limbed like an advocate brought in specifically when a judge wants there to be an adversarial process? that's what john beats of foreign intelligence court has to prosed. >> peter, the president is putting some decisions at congress' doorstep. on someone like -- i can completely understand why one would want the sort of most representative body to be deliberating these issues. on the other hand, does kicking it to congress effectively neutralize the issue? one of those issues is the 215 section of the patriot act, which of course is the collection of nsa phone data. it's one of the most discussed and controversial programs. what is your thinking in terms of the white house decisionmaking to do that? >> well, look. this has become a really

complicated issue for them. the recommendation of the president's review panel was that this data stay at the level of telephone companies and that the government only be able to access it after a court order. but it turns out the telephone companies don't want the responsibility of keeping it. they don't want to be the custodian of this data in effect. if that's the case, then who else can do it? some people talk about a third party, independent consortium that would have it all collected in one place. but then privacy advocates say what would be the difference in having that kind of an outfit as opposed to the government having it directly is not much of a change. it's turned out to be a thornier issue than perhaps people expected at fist. the president wants congress to weigh in. they'd have to pass legislation anyway, so he'll try to challenge them to work with him and find a solution. >> you wrote a great book "days of fire" about the bush-cheney white house. part of that is, a, juicy book sales, but b, the story of how a

president changed in his time in office. and you also wrote a piece yesterday in the times talking about the evolution of president obama on the issue of surveillance and national security. and reminded us all of 2004 and its campaign for senate he said the patriot act was violating our fundamental knowings of privacy in 2005, sponsored or co-sponsored a bill on the fbi cutting down the ability to access americans' records without a court order. he's come a long way. this as much as almost anything else i think is the story of the maturation of an american president. some people will say for bad and some will say for good. but nowhere i think is his transformation more palpable, more readable than on these issues. would you agree with that? >> i think that's great because of evolution obviously. any president, the education of a president, is an important process that every white house goes through. his aides would say that

president obama still shares the same values he has as the senator. but on the other hand he has learned things in office, he wakes up every morning to get those intelligence briefings that tell him all different ways bad guys are trying to kill americans today. that's a soeshing responsibility. they understand that anything he does to curb or restrain these intelligence agencies can blow back in a very dangerous way. as david plouffe, one of his senior advisers said, you get the intelligence briefings every morning and it puts steel in your spine. you can see how the responsibility of being commander in chief changes a constitutional law lecturer might view these issues. >> peter, thanks for your time. >> thanks. coming up, 77 cents is 23 cents less than a dollar. that is a fact. it is also a fact that a woman earns just 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. it is called the gender pay gap.

but not everyone thinks it's something that needs to be fixed. i'll tell you who next. it's hip-hop. for cross-country, classical. and for jumps, i need something...special. so i use my citi thankyou visa card for music downloads and earn two times the points... plus a little extra inspiration. [ ♪ music plays ] the citi thankyou preferred visa card. earn two times the points on entertainment and dining out with no annual fee. citi, with you every step of the way. in fact, they depend on a unique set of nutrients. [ male announcer ] that's why there's ocuvite to help protect your eye health. as you age, your eyes can lose vital nutrients. ocuvite helps replenish key eye nutrients. ocuvite is a vitamin made just for your eyes from the eye care experts as bausch + lomb. ocuvite has a unique formula

that's just not found in any leading multivitamin. your eyes are unique, so help protect your eye health with ocuvite.

yep...doh. [ boy ] slurpably fun and a good source of calcium. dads who get it, get go-gurt. the president met with maria shriver at the white house on tuesday to discuss, among other things, pay equity and the fact that women still earn only 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. of course there are some who question whether pay equity is actually a thing. >> is this a big deal, keirsten, or just another photo-op? >> well, i think it's a big deal for women. >> do you think the government should guarantee equal wages? >> well, i don't think there's really any way they could guarantee equal wages. >> so is this just a pr campaign to, like, urge people to be fair in their paychecks to women? is it just a pr campaign? >> a few points.

one, yes, this is a big deal. and, no, it is not just a pr campaign. and number two, yes, the government should guarantee that members of american society are not discriminated against. research by the center or american progress shows that over the course of a 40-year career the average working woman loses $431,000 as a result of the wage gap. additional research by the institute for women's policy research finds that if women received equal pay the poverty rate for women would be cut in half from 8.1% to 3.9%. the very first piece of legislation signed into law by president obama was the lilly ledbetter fair pay act. but other efforts to reduce the wage gap have stalled in the u.s. congress. last year the paycheck fairness act was blocked by house republicans with every single member of the gop voting against legislation to close loopholes in the equal pay act and require employers to prove that pay

disparities were related to job performance. at the time of the vote, representative virginia foxx of north carolina said the bill was a liberal plot to perpetuate the narrative that republicans are anti-woman. to mr. o'reilly and republican legislators, the campaign to ensure women receive the same pay as men is not a liberal plot. it's actually just the right thing to do. after the break, there are positive signs today that immigration reform might happen. the key word being "might." what ortho who is standing in the way? i'll ask congressman joaquin castro and his twin brother julian castro. double castros! a can of del monte green beans? ♪ ♪ if i was a flower growing wild and free ♪ ♪ all i'd want is you to be my sweet honeybee ♪ ♪ and if was a tree growing tall and green ♪

♪ all i'd want is you to shade me and be my leaves ♪ grown in america. picked & packed at the peak of ripeness. the same essential nutrients as fresh. del monte. bursting with life™.

the same essential nutrients as fresh. at a company that's bringing media and technology together. next is every second of nbcuniversal's coverage 0f the 2014 olympic winter games. it's connecting over one million low-income americans to broadband internet at home. it's a place named one america's most veteran friendly employers. next is information and entertainment in ways you never thought possible. welcome to what's next. comcastnbcuniversal.

there are people skeptical of big, comprehensive bills, and frankly they should be. the only way to make sure

immigration reform works this time is to address these complicated issues one step at a time. >> that was house speaker john boehner back in november. this week republicans have revealed a new possibly real, possibly pretend plan for immigration reform. according to the "national journal," john boehner is planning to unveil a set of republican principles for reform before president obama's state of the union address, aiming to show the gop is not hostile to legislation that might win them hispanic voters. but the journal caveats, no matter what happens, boehner will come out a winner just for the effort. if it flops over hard-liners' objections to anything that approaches amnesty for illegal immigrants, boehner and republican campaign leaders looking for cash can still tell the business community they tried. in other words, republicans plan to reveal new proposals, proposals that very likely won't be accepted by members of their own party, in order to show the world that the party cares about immigrants even though the party in the end may not really care all that much about doing

anything to really help them. and for this herculean effort, donors should give money to the gop and hispanics should vote for republican candidates. join meganow is the democratic congressman from texas' 20th district, joaquin castro, and the mayor of san antonio, texas, julian castro. gentlemen, my dream has come true today. we have both castro brothers in the same shot on the same show. thank you so much for joining me. >> thank you, alex, for having us. and congratulations on the new time at 4:00. >> thank you. anything to get you guys on the show. they suggested if we went to 4:00 maybe we could stand a chance of this interview. >> that's right. ? mayor castro, i'll start with you. this latest report from the "national journal," the idea that somehow it doesn't really matter if immigration reform happens, just the effort enough will be enough to convince business interests and hispanics and other members of the very broad coalition seeking true

immigration reform. do you think that is accurate in any way? >> there's no question that it truly does matter. it matters to our nation's economy. it matters to the more than 11 million folks who are out there living in the shadows right now. it certainly makes a difference in local communities like san antonio and a whole host of other cities across the united states. and my hope is that the gop will come around to either passing comprehensive immigration reform, that's the preference, or if it absolutely needs to be piecemeal, that they will actually follow through on getting all of the pieces done in the coming months. >> right. not just the poison pills but the actually productive progressive planks of immigration reform. >> there needs to be more than just talk. we've heard a lot of talk from the gop over the years. we heard it a few years ago in 2006 and 2007. we've heard it throughout this process. it's not enough to try to appease the business community or anybody else. it's time for action. >> congressman castro, you are

on the hill where all the action is taking place, and i think we heard a rumor you were in a meeting with dennis mcdonough the other day to talk about the going-on on capitol hill, among them immigration reform. what is the attitude among democrats in the white house about how realistic this set of principles is? and are democrats willing to accept some of this beefed-up boarder security in exchange for a plan if not to legalize undocumented workers, to give them some sort of permanent resident status in the united states? >> well, you know, democrats are ready to go on immigration and we have been for a long time. almost 190 democrats have signed on to hr-15, which was introduced in the fall of 2013. and that incluldes beefed-up board security, but it also includes a path to citizenship, and that will be a sticking point for republicans. we hope they can get there. we believe it should be done comp hence live because all these parts work together. what you do to one piece affects

another piece. if they can pass all the pieces and we can come to a final agreement, as democrats we're ready to do that. >> i want to follow up with you on that. that sounds like the door is open to, if not full citizenship, some kind of legal residence. it sounds like the democrats have more leeway to negotiate than whatever the republicans are going to present. >> you know, we're pushing for full-fledged citizenship, a path to citizenship. as you know, alex, the path to citizenship in these bills has been, quite frankly, a very difficult and tough one, not easy at all. and so that's what we're sticking to on our side. >> i'll say, you know, that it would be unprecedented in american history for us to create a permanent class of folks who are not citizens outside of slavery, and we certainly learned our lesson from that. i'm not comparing the two in any other sense except to say that

we want in the united states for folks to be fully invested in our nation, to swear an oath to our, an allegiance to our flag and to be on the same level as everyone else if, as joaquin mentioned, through the legislation, through these tough measures that are put in place, they earn it, recognizing that, you know, initially they came over here in an undocumented way, that is the preference. i think that anything else, if there's something short of a pathway to citizenship, that's better than nothing, but it's probably a short-term fix as opposed to a long-term fix. >> right. if the whole point here is creating one america, splitting it up into two americas doesn't really get the job done. >> right. >> congressman, i want to ask you, because we talk a lot about what republicans are not doing. the white house is doing plenty of things and has been a real motor on the issue of immigration reform, but we also, if you talk about deportations, we are at record numbers of deportations. >> right.

>> and the washington says the president could be doing more, he could extend promises to some group, to domestic violence victims, for example, or workers who are bringing civil rights or labor violation crimes. do you think the white house should look more carefully at their deportation policy give than he is deporting immigrants at a rate faster than george w. bush? >> i do. and i think because congress has not acted on this issue, which it should have already, you will see democrats and hopefully some republicans press the president and the executive branch on that issue in 2014. >> congressman castro and mayor castro, may this not be the last time we all three can discuss immigration reform. thank you so much for your time. >> thanks for having us. >> thank you. coming up, the white house warns that any new sanctions on iran could cut it will breakthrough nuclear deal and signal a march toward war. will congress hold its fire? hey guys! sorry we're late. did you run into traffic? no, just had to stop by the house to grab a few things. you stopped by the house? uh-huh. yea.

alright, whenever you get your stuff, run upstairs, get cleaned up for dinner. you leave the house in good shape? yea. yea, of course. ♪ [ sportscaster talking on tv ] last-second field go-- yea, sure ya did. [ male announcer ] introducing at&t digital life. personalized home security and automation. get professionally monitored security for just $29.99 a month. with limited availability in select markets. ♪ and his new boss told him two things -- cook what you love, and save your money. joe doesn't know it yet, but he'll work his way up from busser to waiter to chef before opening a restaurant specializing in fish and game from the great northwest. he'll start investing early, he'll find some good people to help guide him,

and he'll set money aside from his first day of work to his last, which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade.

open to innovation. open to ambition. open to bold ideas. that's why new york has a new plan -- dozens of tax free zones all across the state. move here, expand here, or start a new business here and pay no taxes for ten years... we're new york. if there's something that creates more jobs, and grows more businesses... we're open to it. start a tax-free business at startup-ny.com.

senators just concluded a meeting on sanctions and we will be listening in. but first the cnbc "market wrap." >> stocks slipping today after a two-day rally. here's how the major averages look as we head into tomorrow's trade. the dow falling 63 point, the s&p down 3, the nasdaq gaining 4. that's it from cnbc, first in business worldwide. [ woman #1 ] why do i cook?

because an empty pan is a blank canvas. [ woman #2 ] to share a moment. [ woman #3 ] to travel the world without leaving home. [ male announcer ] whatever the reason. whatever the dish. make it delicious with swanson. we're gonna be late. ♪ ♪

♪ oh are we early? [ male announcer ] commute your way with the bold, all-new nissan rogue. ♪ bulldog: through monday, bulldog: save up to 40% on clearance mattresses. get up to $300 off serta, posturepedic, even tempur-pedic. puppy: i found a red tag! bulldog: mattress discounters' year end clearance sale ends monday. at a company that's bringing media and technology together. next is every second of nbcuniversal's coverage 0f the 2014 olympic winter games. it's connecting over one million low-income americans to broadband internet at home.

it's a place named one america's most veteran friendly employers. next is information and entertainment in ways you never thought possible. welcome to what's next. comcastnbcuniversal. after nearly a decade of crippling sanctions and dozens of failed attempts at diplomacy, iran has finally come to the

negotiating table over its nuclear program. the sixth-month deal struck between iran and several world powers will go into effect next monday. it's a deal that could potentially prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons and it is a deal that has been hailed as an agreement of groundbreaking and historic proportions. so naturally congress is ready to muck it up or at least they were until today. in recent weeks a group of 59 senators, including 16 democrats, led by democratic senator bob menendez and republican mark kirk, have signed on to a bill that would increase sanctions against iran. the critics including former defense secretary bob gates and former president jimmy carter have said this bill will sabotage negotiations, while the white house has suggested it could draw the u.s. into war with iran. but until a few hours ago, there was still a very real possible that a bill would come to the floor with enough votes to override a presidential veto. so what happened? last night president obama met with senate democrats for two

hours in the white house to convince them to pose the sanctions. and it appears thus far to have worked. already this afternoon one of the bill's co-sponsors, new mexico democratic senator martin hinrich, came out publicly against the new round of sanctions. and according to "the washington post," harry reid and senate democratic leadership aides have been telling reporters that there are no plans for a vote on a new bill. so where are we exactly on a nuclear armed iran? joining me now to answer that very question, political editor and white house correspondent at "the huffington post," sam stein, and senior writer at the daily beast and professor at the city university of new york peter binart. sam, isle start with you first, the view from the white house on this. what did president obama say to convince these democrats? we should show feek who we're g about. among the 16 democrats backing the bill, chuck shumer, mary landrieu, keirsten gillibrand, joe manchin and michael bennett.

what was the argument here? >> among the people who want to put off new sanctions the argument is that you need to give this new process, the this new agreement, a little bit of breathing room. if you were to pass new sanctions at this juncture it would be interpreted as an act of bad faith among the united states. it would give iran a pr advantage so to speak when it comes to this type of negotiation. the other argument that's being made is if, in fact, iran backs out of the tenet of the deal, if they come away from the table, if they don't follow through on their obligation, there's nothing actually preventing congress from enacting new sanctions then. you don't have to do it then. you can do it after the fact. these are the two key arguments by administration. in the end this is sort of a show because it all came down to whether or not harry reid would allow this bill to come to a vote. even before last night you were getting hins from the leader's office that that was never going to happen. we were wondering what would take place but in fact it's probably a show and they still don't have a veto-proof

majority, which the president has promised to do if it passed congress. >> peter, you have written in no uncertain terms about your distaste for this bill and what it would do to an agreement that has been very hard to come by. jeffrey goldberg would seem to agree with you. he says the unfortunate thing of making iran look good. what was the propeller here? why were these democrats even standing in the way? sam has presented, quote, the reasoning here. you can still enact sanctions if it falls apart. was it apac? where was the motivation here? >> i think they're a network of pro-israel organizations that have been pushing for sanctions almost irrespective of the circumstances for many years now. and there's no secret cabal about this. this is being done very openly. they have to have every right to do that. but if you look at the mares of the case, the case for this sanctions bill now is very weak. i wrote a piece this week in the israeli newspaper.

the interim agreement says there can be no new sanctions during the course of this interim agreement. they say we get around this because there's a waiver. but if you look at what it would take for barack obama to invoke that waiver it would be virtual limb possible for him to invoke it because the standards are so unrealistic. so it really is, whether the sponsors of this bill know it or not, is an absolute poison pill for any chance of a diplomatic -- >> you suggest in your piece it's such a badly written bill that there's no way that everybody could actually have read it. >> absolutely. almost all the people i've talked to on the hill about this thinks many of the senators have not read it. it makes conditions bad things but which have nothing to do with the nuclear deal and were never expected to be part of the nuclear deal. it also demands there be zero enrichment of uranium, which the obama administration has already said they're willing to allow in certain circumstances. it's a completely unrealistic set of expectations. >> sam, the fact that this may

not go forward, that the deal may have a chance to -- we may have a chance at working out this deal, from the -- in the foreign policy context, this may be a massive victory for the obama white house in terms of foreign policy. he's not got an lot of credit for that which he has done thus far in the foreign policy front. in fact, he suffered many arrows for foreign policy in the middle east. how much do you think this is a game changer for the administration? >> we have miles and miles to go before we can determine that. even the president himself has said there's a 50/50 proposition these negotiations work. from the congress' perspective, the reason to push this deal, at least as they tell it, is it provides an insurance blanket, a policy should the agreement with the iranians not work out. that you have in the back pocket. secondarily, you can make the case there's a good cop, bad cop thing going on here in which the administration is extending an olive branch and congress has the kunl et waiting for them. the problem i've accounted and

maybe peter has the answer, under this deal it's very difficult who determines whether or not iran has violated the agreement, in which case sanctions would be approved. i haven't figured out what it would take to have new sanctions be impose under this arrangement. there's a lot of gray areas that could muck up with historic achievement. >> peter? >> it's not at all clear that the administration would have the authority under this bill to stop the sanctions from going into place. and the expectations for what would be required far final deal are complete and abject iran janica pitch lags even on issues that are not considered issues at all. the good cop bad cop thing only works if the bad cop strengthens the good cop, if he makes him be completely -- then it's all bad cop or no cop or whatever. i'm losing control of the metaphor. >> lawlessness. >> that's where we're going here. >> too many cops. >> that's what it is. unfortunately we have to leave it there. peter and sam, thank you both for joining me. >> thanks, alex.

call it retaliation. hard to read that on the prompter. just this week the national labor relations board filed a complaint against walmart for disciplining and firing worker who is participated in protests against the store last year. i'll explore an honest day's work and whether it gets an honest day's wage. passenger: road trip buddy. let's put some music on. woman: welcome to learning spanish in the car. passenger: you've got to be kidding me. driver: this is good. woman: vamanos. driver & passenger: vamanos. woman: gracias. driver & passenger: gracias. passenger: trece horas en el carro sin parar y no traes musica. driver: mira entra y comprame unas papitas. vo: get up to 795 miles per tank in the tdi clean diesel. the volkswagen passat. recipient of the j.d. power appeal award, two years in a row.

this is the creamy chicken corn chowder. i mean, look at it. so indulgent.

did i tell you i am on the... [ both ] chicken pot pie diet! me too! [ male announcer ] so indulgent, you'll never believe they're light. 100-calorie progresso light soups.

i took medicine but i still have symptoms. [ sneeze ] [ male announcer ] truth is not all flu products treat all your symptoms. what? [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus severe cold and flu speeds relief to these eight symptoms. [ breath of relief ] thanks. [ male announcer ] you're welcome. ready? go. walmart is facing sweeping new legal action for allegedly up lawfully fire, threatening and surveilling its own workers. on november 23rd, 2012, walmart workers held strikes in 100 cities to protest the low wage giant's retaliation against employee who is tried to organize unions. walmart's response -- retaliation. according to the complain,

walmart threatened employees with reprisal if they engaged in strikes and protests. here's spokesman dave tayvar being faked by a certain news outlet the monday before the protests. >> you've got a fight on your hands. i want to know how rough walmart's going to be. for example, if some of your workers walk out, walk off job, on black friday, will you fire them? >> yeah, it's going to depend on the situation. we're going to take each of those on a case-by-case basis. but, look, we expect our associates, if they're scheduled to work, show up and do their job. >> you're a diplomat by the way and we appreciate you being with us from walmart. >> it doesn't end there. during 2012 and 2013 the retail giant allegedly violated federal law at 34 stores in 14 state, firing 19 employee who is took part in the strikes. in a statement provided to msnbc, a walmart spokesman called the action a, quote, procedural step taken by the national labor relations board

and said that walmart looks forward to the opportunity to shed some light on the facts of the case. the federal complaint coincides with leaked internal walmart power point presentations including this salaried manager module, which thoughtfully gives managers their own suggested opinions, including, "for a walmart associate, i think unions are a waste of money. you can speak for yourself." you can speak for yourself as long as the words are from this script. here's another. "in my opinion, unions just want to hurt walmart and make it harder to run our business." another section auspiciously titled "facts," reads, "unions are a business, not a social club or organization. they want soerpts' money." this of course is coming from the most profitable kcompany in the country whose heirs have more wealth than 42 others american families combined. if wall mar's blatant and orwellian suppression of their own employees' right to organize

isn't foul enough, consider this -- for the past century the decline of union membership has corresponded almost exactly with the rise of income inequality. in the middle of the century, when union mebship was around 30 others or higher, inincome inequality was at record lows. after that, union membership fell dramatically in the 1980s and income inequality skyrocketed. walmart's suppression of its employees' legal right to organize isn't just inexcusable and perhaps unlawful, it is emblematic of a certain economic sabotage that has taken place in this country for the past 30 years. if there is any chance at rebalancing our economic scales, it will be tu in large part to those employees who were brave enough not to read the script as it was written. that's all for now today and we'll see you back here tomorrow at 4:00 p.m. eastern. "the ed show" is up next.

good evening, americans. live from new york. let's get to work. >> i am out there negotiating the trans-pacific partnership. >> the tpp will bring 40% of the world's economy, world's economy, together. >> this is another nafta disaster waiting to happen. >> this has been a good deal. both have become more competitive in the world marketplace as a result. >> and there is a tooth fairy and an easter bunny. >> the trans-pacific partnership, which has an ability to be able to raise standards of doing business. >> let's look at reality instead of theory. >> i can tell you trade promotion authority is a priority, not in theory but in fact. >> the middle class is being offshored. >> literally millions of jobs have been lost, have been sent offshore.