but it's true ultimately that how much people want to believe in something matters a lot. and that's the bottom line. >> political consultant tara dowdell. brendan nyhan from dartmouth college. that's "all in" for this evening. "the rachel maddow show" starts now. good evening, chris. thanks, man. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. if you've flown into john f. kennedy airport over the last decade, there's a good chance you taxied past hangar number 17 at that airport. even if you did, you might not have known it even if you were looking out the window of the plane when you went past. the location of hangar 17 was a secret. officials didn't want people to know exactly where that building was on the grounds of kennedy airport. that's because for many years hangar 17 at jfk housed the wreckage, the salvaged wreckage from the terrorist attacks on new york city's world trade center on september 11th, 2001. >> two massive buildings now

gone, and now we look at where it all went. we have a special look tonight at all the wreckage that was taken from ground zero. all of it sacred. and it's all awaiting a home, a permanent memorial. it's all being cared for in a hangar at new york's jfk airport. >> it's as if that day five years ago is now contained in this room. the violence is over and the heat has cooled, but it's all here. you can feel it, you can smell it. it's enough to make anyone angry and sad and spiritual all over again. >> it's an airline hangar as church. >> there's no question that this is sacred ground here again, as it is down at ground zero.

>> in the first big room, the once mighty, once shiny outer rims of the building now broken, burned and rusted and lying on their sides. >> after 9/11, one of the hard questions, one of the daunting responsibilities facing the people who are tasked with cleaning up the site of the attacks was what to do with the wreckage. the terrorist attacks left 1.2 million tons of debris behind in new york city. it all had to be sorted and cared for. people's personal belongings, jewelry, clothing, papers, that all had to be sifted through. there, of course, were the human remains. there was the dust that contained human remains. there was the building material from the destroyed buildings. all of what was left there in that small pile, it all had to be not just cleaned up but in a way laid to rest. part of the 1.2 million tons of sacred wreckage was the twisted and mangled heavy-grade steel that made up the world trade center buildings, themselves. those huge, tall, straight buildings. people tasked with the cleanup had to figure out whether they should keep that steel, and if

so, how they should keep it. and how they should transport it when it needed to be moved and where they should send it to. that's how they arrived at hangar 17. that is where authorities decided to house that wreckage indefinitely in that giant airplane hangar, hangar 17 at jfk airport. well, ten years down the line, leading up to the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks the port authority decided that cities around the world could apply to obtain a piece of the wreckage. they could make their case about how they wanted to commemorate the 9/11 attacks in their city and if they made a compelling enough case, they would be given one of these basically sacred objects. hundreds of cities from around the world applies for that honor. it was london that got the biggest piece of the world trade center outside of the united states. london is using it in a program to teach kids about the terrorist attacks. the city of calgary in canada, they received a piece of the exterior wall of one of the world trade center buildings to display in a military museum. austin, texas, received a column

to display at their 9/11 monument at the texas state cemetery. trenton, new jersey, received a piece of the south tower for their museum. there were hundreds of applications. one city in china, military bases in afghanistan. at least one city or one facility in every single state in the country wanted that honor. and it was hard to get. one group in canada who had hoped to obtain a piece of the buildings ultimately withdrew their application because the application process had been so lengthy and so onerous so they took their name out of contention. but that process was one way that people got to take a little piece of that day for themselves. to remember and to grieve. if they proved to the port authority of new york and new jersey that they should be allowed to have one of these precious, somber remnants from the terrible moment in history that killed so many people. that was one way. but according to a front. page story in today's "the new york times" there was another way as well.

this is bill baroni, port authority of new york and new jersey. he was appointed to this new high ranking, high paying job at the port authority by new jersey governor chris christie. this picture shows mr. baroni in his capacity as an executive of the port authority. he's speaking in 2012 in this photo. and this is at a ceremony where, see what he's got his hands on there? he is presenting to the mayor of secaucus, new jersey, one of the pieces of steel from the world trade center ruins. that is an actual piece of the world trade center he's giving to the mayor of secaucus. why did that mayor get that piece of the world trade center towers? "the new york times" today reports that beyond this difficult worldwide how will you commemorate 9/11 application process, another way people got pieces of the actual steel from the wreckage of the world trade center from that terrorist

attack was to be a new jersey mayor who the christie administration was wooing for an endorsement for governor chris christie's re-election. according to the "times," pieces of steel from the ruins of the world trade center were, "presented by the port authority of new york and new jersey to 20 carefully chosen new jersey mayors who sat atop a list of 100 whose endorsements governor christie hoped to win." if you feel the need to hit pause and go take a shower to rid yourself of the feeling you are having right now, i understand. i'm probably on dvr, so just hit pause. wait, there's more. quoting from the "times" today, "at photo opportunities around the mangled pieces of steel, bill baroni, mr. christie's top staff appointee at the port authority told audiences how many people wanted a similar remnant of the destroyed buildings and how special these

mayors were." these mayors who were at the top of that list because governor chris christie wanted them to endorse him. in this same cringe-inducing article that makes you want to run into every social studies class in the country and tell the kids not to go into politics unless they're emigrating to a country where it isn't this disgusting, "the new york times" makes clear they have seen this numbered list of 100, this numbered list of 100 mayors from whom chris christie's re-election campaign was trying to get endorsements and apparently choosing people to get remnants of the world trade center. they knew that the top 20 received a sacred piece of 9/11 wreckage as essentially part of a chris christie political goody bag. apparently because they have seen that list, though, the "times" is also able to report where the mayor of ft. lee, new jersey, mark sokolich falls on the list, the mayor of the town that was gridlocked as part of some as yet unexplained political scheme to close access lanes on to the george washington bridge to punish ft. lee for something we still don't understand. mark sokolich was number 45 of 100.

number 45 on the christie administration's list of 100 mayors that were important to them. 45th in importance. in terms of the people who governor christie thought he needed to sign off on him in order to get him re-elected by the margin he wanted. that's kind of interesting, right? the theory that has been posited over and over again, including the front-page story in "the new york times," the theory as to why lanes on the busiest lanes in the world were shut down by members of governor christie's inner circle. the theory is it was about political retribution against that mayor, political retribution against mayor mark sokolich in ft. lee for him refusing to endorse chris christie for re-election. seriously, though? think about that for a second. close down access to the world's busiest bridge for number 45 on your list? you gridlock a town for five

days for a guy who's only number 45 on your list of priorities? seriously? what does that mean they did if number 35 failed to endorse them? i mean, i shudder to think what would happen if number five refused to endorse. would that be nuclear? when governor christie gave his marathon press conference addressing the lane closures back in january, he said the political retribution explanation didn't make sense to him. and he made a good case for it. he said, listen, i can't pick mayor mark sokolich of ft. lee out of a lineup. he said mayor sokolich was not on my radar. the mayor of ft. lee was simply not that important to the governor's re-election campaign to warrant this kind of retribution. according to the governor, himself, why would anybody do something so dramatic and risky, so outrageously punitive against a little town that just didn't matter that much to this statewide campaign? governor christie made that case publicly and emphatically back in january. saying basically i got bigger fish to fry than this mark sokolich guy, shutting down the bridge to hurt him over the endorsement issue, it makes no sense. and we find out today that mark sokolich was, in fact, number 45 on the list of critical endorsements that was created by

the campaign. okay. understood. so then why did one of governor christie's top staffers order traffic problems for that town? why did they apparently order those lanes closed? the unexplained nature of what happened on that bridge is still the most interesting question in this whole scandal and it's the reason, frankly, why the scandal continues to be so fascinating in addition to being the cause of ongoing investigations. if it wasn't worth it to rain down a week of traffic hell for one endorsement from number 45, ft. lee, why did they rain down a week of traffic hell on ft. lee? why did they do it? while we were absorbing the new information about the pieces of the world trade center in the new piece from "the new york times" today, bridget anne kelly, governor christie's former chief of staff, the person who sent the "time for some traffic problems in ft. lee" e-mail, she appeared in court today. lawyers for miss kelly and bill stepien, governor christie's former campaign manager argued today in court that bridget kelly and bill stepien shouldn't have to comply with subpoenas they received from the new

jersey legislative committee that's investigating the lane closures. and it's going to be a little while before that matter is decided. the judge made clear she wants additional information from the attorney for the legislature. the judge will rule some time thereafter. the co-chair of the investigation john wisniewski said it looks like from today's proceedings this thing is going to go on for longer than anyone expected. so the fifth amendment issues and whether or not they have to turn over their documents, we shall see. but one of the other issues that came up in court today right away and then repeatedly was the issue of immunity. the judge asked the attorney for the legislature, if you want those documents so badly, why fight them on their fifth amendment claims? why not just grant them immunity from prosecution, then they can't incriminate themselves because they're immune from prosecution and they'll obviously hand it all over. watch how this went. >> obviously miss kelly is critical to what occurred based on the communications that we presented to your honor, that we

have. >> but you could grant her immunity then they have their right against self-incrimination goes away and we don't have the constitutional issue and you have the right to proceed with your investigation. >> well, that's a -- that's a complicated analysis, your honor. one, what -- yes? >> under the statute, the committee has the explicit right to grant immunity. >> the committee has explicit right to grant immunity for testimony. it shouldn't be that the committee has to grant immunity in order to get documents that otherwise are rightfully within their power to request. >> fascinating. okay. the two people at the very, very center of this scandal, the two people who we know of who are directly connected to this so far are bridget kelly who sent "time for some traffic problems in ft. lee," and the guy who received that e-mail and replied "got it," david wildstein.

when david wildstein was called to testify before the legislature, he invoked his fifth amendment rights as well, but his attorney said specifically if he were granted immunity, he would talk. well, today we heard a similar line of argument from the attorneys for bridget kelly and from the judge discussing her case. if she were granted immunity from criminal prosecution, then maybe she, too, would reveal what she knows about why this all happened and how this all happened and, of course, the question of who was in on it. the question of immunity in terms of what happens next. does the legislature have the power to grant immunity to the people who are saying i'm taking the fifth, pleading the fifth, i don't want to hand over documents, i don't want to testify, i don't want to incriminate myself. if they can hand out immunity to those people pleading the fifth, will those people sing?

it's a legal question and a strategic question. more on that in just a second. stay with us. vicks nyquil. powerful nighttime 6 symptom cold and flu relief. ♪ i know, it's a lot to take in. that's why i've conducted this comprehensive analysis, comparing my prices to my competitors', so you know you're getting a good deal, even if it's not with me! pretty rad, right? what is she talking about? i have no idea. [ bell rings ] i'll take everything. what?! man on p.a.: comparing rates since back in the day. but one is so clever that your skin looks better even after you take it off. neutrogena healthy skin liquid makeup. 98% saw improved skin. does your makeup do that? neutrogena® cosmetics.

miss kelly was a public employee communicating about the use of public resources on the lane closures to reassign the lanes, public lanes in a public thoroughfare. and the bottom line is the cost of being a public employee is that the records she has, whether in her personal possession now, or otherwise, that deal with state issues are not protected by the fifth amendment. >> that was reid schar, a lawyer arguing in court today that bridget kelly, new jersey governor chris christie's former deputy chief of staff should be forced to hand over records to the legislature's investigation into the bridge lane scandal in new jersey. joining us now, shawn boburg, the "bergen record" reporter. he was in court today for the kelly/stepien hearing.

shawn, thanks for being here. >> thank you. >> on the question of immunity which i did not expect today's court proceedings to be about as much as they were, what was that argument about? was that -- was that argument about whether or not the legislature can indemnify these people from prosecution? people who don't want to hand over documents or don't want to testify, thus potentially opening up an avenue to get them to talk? >> yeah, that's part of it. part of the question here is does this committee -- it's a legislative committee. these are lawmakers who are elected officials. do they have the authority to grant immunity to someone who agrees to talk to them and provide documents? you heard a little bit of a disagreement today. you know, miss kelly's lawyer said you could do it with a snap. on the other side was reid schar who said it's not quite clear. remember, what we're talking

about is immunity from both the state and federal prosecution. this is a committee that doesn't have prosecutorial power, is not coordinating with federal authorities so it's tough to imagine how that might work logistically. >> it's one thing if the prosecution was going to come from the legislative committee that's doing the investigating, they could say, we agree to not prosecute you. it's hard to believe they could mange an agreement for immunity that then the u.s. attorney for the state of new jersey, or indeed, manhattan, would respect if those investigations at the federal level found some sort of criminal, potential criminal violation. >> yeah, and that possibility was raised today that even if the committee granted immunity, you could still have a federal prosecutor who comes in, finds

wrongdoing, proceeds with the case. in that event, what we might likely see if that was immunity granted is a challenge, an appeal based on a judge's decision and the committee's promise that anything you say or provide to us cannot be used to prosecute you. >> shawn, i want to ask you -- a little bit of tape from the hearing today that i want to ask you about. we have been saying over and over again in shorthand that bridget kelly sent that e-mail that said "time for some traffic problems in ft. lee." her lawyer contested that today. watch. >> i am not conceding today, nor do i have to, and it would be unethical for me to do it as an attorney, concede any element of proof that potentially could be incriminating to my client or provide a link of information to be incriminating to my client. i start with this proposition. i to not concede that my client sent this. the government has to prove it. the committee has to prove it. >> he does not concede that bridget kelly sent the e-mail "time for some traffic problems if ft. lee." reid schar seemed to be surprised to hear that argument today. was that a surprise? >> it was in some respects, but i think the broader point that crithcley is making here is he's placing the burden fully on the committee saying we're not going to help you. you're asking us to provide documents that may incriminate my client. we're not going to concede the

documents already in your possession are authentic. so he's really laying the gauntlet down and challenging the committee to prove its case much the same way that a federal prosecutor or another law enforcement agency would do it. >> shawn boburg, reporter for the "bergen record." thank you for helping us understand this. it's amazing to be able to see these people in person because we've heard so much about them without seeing them in action today, but the story continues to get thicker and thicker. thanks, shawn. one of the major issues that needs to be settled here is whether or not the committee really does have the subpoena power that it thinks it does. if the judge rules that bill stepien and bridget kelly don't have to hand over the documents, it will raise real questions as to whether or not the legislature effectively has the power to keep investigating this story by compelling people to hand stuff over. watch this space. we'll be right back. ♪

what is this place? where are we? this is where we bring together the fastest internet and the best in entertainment. we call it the x1 entertainment operating system.

it looks like the future! we must have encountered a temporal vortex. further analytics are necessary. beam us up. ♪ that's my phone. hey. [ female announcer ] the x1 entertainment operating system, only from xfinity. tv and internet together like never before. my favorite song. sorry. there are not too many congressional seats left in the country where either party conceivably could win a particular congressional race. almost every seat now is a safe seat. either for the republican party or the democratic party. that's the mess we've gotten ourselves into as a nation. but tonight, there was a congressional race, a special election in one of the remaining districts in the country that sort of vaguely still a little bit swingy.

leans republican but not entirely republican. it's florida's 13th congressional district. one of the only places in the country where democrats thought they might conceivably pick up a seat this year that was previously held by a republican. in this case, by longtime republican congressman bill young who passed away late last year. well, for this special election today, the democrats ran former gubernatorial candidate alex sink against republican former lobbyist and bill young aide, david jolly. polls closed in the 13th district of florida at 7:00 p.m. eastern, and with 48.4% of the vote, republican david jolly has won the race. republicans will hold on to that seat in florida. the margin was 48.4% to 46.6%. special election tonight in florida, one down, lots more to go, but not for months. doesn't mean there aren't people spending money hand-over-fist to get there now, and that story is ahead. stay with us. [ male announcer ] they say mr. clean was born

to help people clean better, and that he travels the world inventing amazing new cleaners, like his newest invention, liquid muscle, that lifts and cleans tough grease with less scrubbing. it's a liquid gel, so it's less watery and cleans more. and its cap stops by itself so almost nothing's wasted. ♪ no matter where he went or who he helped, people couldn't thank him enough. new mr. clean liquid muscle. when it comes to clean, there's only one mr.

on december 6th, 2007, "the new york times" published this bombshell report saying the cia destroyed videotapes the agency made of interrogations. you know what kind of interrogations i mean. the cia subjected prisoners to waterboarding and other forms of

torture. later reported that the destruction of the videotapes was contrary to the wishes of both the bush white house at the time, in 2005, and also the director of national intelligence. but the cia made the decision on their own. they made the decision to destroy those tapes on the advice of their own internal lawyers, never mind what anybody else wants them to. now, congress which is supposed to be overseeing the cia, was horrified by this revelation. the director of the cia came up to the hill to brief the intelligence committee after this revelation in "the new york times" exposing what the cia had done to destroy these tapes. he told the congress essentially don't worry about us destroying those videotapes, those tapes didn't mean anything, didn't show anything important. he told congress the cia had taken detailed written notes of everything they did in those interrogation rooms and those notes would be handed over to congress now, all that written information and that should satisfy their needs. well, the intelligence committee

did send some of its staffers to go read those written reports from the cia, and what they found in those written reports apparently upset them significantly. members of the intelligence committee were briefed on a lot of things that the cia had done, but apparently they were not briefed on this stuff. according to the chair, now, dianne feinstein, what senate staffers found in those reports, quote, was chilling. the interrogations and conditions of definement at the cia detention sites were far different and far more harsh than the way the cia had described them to us. us meaning the intelligence committee which is supposed to be overseeing the cia. as a result of what they found and were disturbed by in the written reports, the intelligence committee voted they would do a complete review of this issue, they'd do a complete review of the cia's secret prisons and cia interrogations in those prisons. and you know what, the cia is obliged to go along with that. they are not allowed to act unilaterally. they are overseen by congress.

when congress authorizes and votes for an investigation, and asks the cia for documents, the cia really is supposed to turn those documents over. the cia did turn over millions of documents. sort of. what they did was set up some sort of secure location somewhere in northern virginia where they'd allow members of the committee and staffers from the committee to come to that off-site facility managed by the cia and there at that facility they could review those millions of pages of documents. they couldn't take them, themselves, to the senate. they had to do it where the cia could keep an eye on them. what could possibly go wrong? within a few months of having set up that arrangement with the cia, starting to review millions of pages of documents, the intelligence committee and staffers realized that something was wrong. that documents they had seen were disappearing. the cia was taking some stuff back, even after they had given it to the committee in the first place. they appeared to be going

through the staffers, going -- excuse me, going through the computers that the senate staffers were supposedly using to oversee the cia and they were removing documents from those computers. >> in may of 2010, the committee staff noticed that the documents have been provided for the committees that had been provided for the committee's review were no longer accessible. staff approached the cia personnel at the off-site location who initially denied that documents had been removed. cia personnel then blamed information technology personnel who were almost all contractors for removing the documents, themselves, without direction or authority. and then the cia stated that the removal of the documents was ordered by the white house. when the committee approached the white house, the white house denied giving the cia any such

order. after a series of meetings, i learned that on two occasions, cia personnel electronically removed committee access to cia documents. >> so the senate is trying to oversee the cia. it's their constitutional responsibility. they're trying to investigate something the cia has done. the cia is messing with the investigation. they took away documents that the senate was looking at. they went into the senate's computers and said, huh-uh, we're taking that. that ended up being really important and led to two things. first of all, it led to public allegations, bombshell allegations that the cia was in effect spying on congress, that they were using spy tactics, the things they're empowered to do as a clandestine agency. they're using those tactics against the united states congress, against the part of the u.s. government that is

supposed to oversee them. that's the first consequence of the cia getting caught taking those documents off the senate computers. the second consequence, though, was more spy versus spy style. because the second consequence of the cia getting caught messing with the senate in that way is that senate staffers decided, in response, effectively, to take matters into their own hands. now, remember, this whole thing started with that revelation in "the new york times" that the cia had destroyed evidence about themselves. right? they had destroyed videotapes of them effectively torturing prisoners. years later with the senate trying to investigate that, the cia was again trying to get rid of evidence, remove documents from the view of the investigation. there was one particular document turned up, an internal document, they believe undercut a lot of the cia's denials and they knew the cia wished the senate hadn't had access to. senate staffers, knowing that, took that document. they took it physically out of that secure location in northern virginia and they apparently took it here to the hart senate

office building in washington, d.c., one of secure facilities in that building designed to handle secret intelligence information. apparently inside that building, they then locked it up in a safe. >> the cia has previously withheld and destroyed information about its detention and interrogation program. including its decision in 2005 to destroy interrogation videotapes over the objections of the bush white house and the director of national intelligence. based on the above, there was a need to preserve and protect the internal panetta review in the committee's own secure spaces. >> to preserve and protect it, we needed to take it away from the cia and keep it ourselves. so theoretically, as a

constitutional republic, we are supposed to have a spy agency that does all sorts of clandestine stuff kept secret from the public by necessity. everything they do is supposed to be briefed to the intelligence committee in congress. congress is supposed to know everything that they do. and they're supposed to effectively set bounds by policy for what the cia can and cannot do. on paper, that's how it works. now we know that in real life, these two sides, the supposed overseers and the agency they oversee, they're stealing documents from one another. the senate is hiding stuff in safes in their own office building to keep the cia from destroying stuff they think the cia will destroy unless the senate steals it from them. this in nuts. once they realize they're dealing with death of the republic style allegations, our own spy service has turned on our own government, that the cia is spying on congress. once they learn that congress in response has moved cia documents on to capitol hill in order to keep the cia from destroying

them and hiding them from congress. then the cia decides to strike back. oh, yeah. you said, we're doing something illegal? no, you're doing something illegal. the cia decided that they would refer those senate staffers for prosecution. they would refer them for criminal prosecution for moving those documents into that safe on capitol hill. and that is where everything went completely off the hook today when the chair of the senate intelligence committee, who has been very pro-cia all along, when dianne feinstein, no liberal on these matters, got up this morning on the senate floor and made a totally remarkable possibly unprecedented 40-minute speech where she flat-out accused the cia of doing things in those interrogations that they never admitted to congress. she accused them of committing crimes to cover it up. she accused them of spying illegally on congress. listen to what she said about the cia's counterthreat that the cia was going to go after the staffers of the committee that is making these allegations against them.

watch this. >> weeks later, i was also told the acting counsel general of the cia filed a crimes report with the department of justice concerning the committee staff's action. i view the acting counsel general's refer as a potential effort to intimidate this staff and i am not taking it lightly. i should note that for most, if not all of the cia's detention and interrogation program, the now-acting general counsel was a lawyer in the cia's counterterrorism center. the unit within which the cia managed and carried out this program. from mid-2004 until the official termination of the detention and interrogation program in january, 2009, he was the unit's

chief lawyer. he is mentioned by name more than 1,600 times in our study. and now this individual is sending a crimes report to the department of justice on the actions of congressional staff. the same congressional staff who researched and drafted a report that details how cia officers, including the acting general counsel, himself, provided inaccurate information to the department of justice about the program. >> dianne feinstein got up on the floor of the senate today and alleged that one of the cia staffers who she says not only effectively took part in the torture program but lied to the department of justice about it, is now the person at the cia who is threatening to prosecute members of the senate staff who are about to expose what he did. the acting general counsel of the cia is not one of those

positions that they post the guy's name on the website. we are not necessarily allowed to know who that is at the cia. and senator dianne feinstein did not say his name today, but "the new york times" reports tonight it is likely to be this person who is officially the chief deputy general counsel of the cia which means he would be the number two in that office. the reasoning goes that the number one job in that office has been vacant since last fall, so it would make sense that this number two guy would be acting general counsel until somebody new could be confirmed to lead the office. if it is him, if that is who she is talking about, he signed off, reportedly signed off internally at the cia in 2005 when the agency decided to destroy those videotapes of those torture sessions. i mean, interrogations. same guy. our country must sometimes act in secret, or at least arguably our country must sometimes act in secret. we must have, for example, a spy service to spy. but the only way we can have

secret government and still remain a democracy is if there is some part of our government that is allowed to oversee what the secret agencies do. if those agencies use their clandestine tactics against the government, that's a sort of thing that's an instant forfeit. that's the kind of thing that undermines the whole justification for any part of our government to have any kind of power of secret action. what dianne feinstein alleged on the floor of the senate today is a huge constitution-sized big deal for our country. i will light up every room i walk into.

[ female announcer ] olay presents the new regenerist luminous collection. renews surface cells to even skin tone. in just two weeks, see pearlescent, luminous skin. new regenerist luminous. from olay. glass on floors. daily chores. for the little mishaps you feel use neosporin to help you heal. it kills germs so you heal four days faster. neosporin.

use with band-aid brand bandages.

you said at your confirmation hearing you wanted to restore the trust between cia and the overseers in the senate. this is a pretty major gulf, if it is proved the cia did do this, would you feel you'd have to step down? >> i am confident that the authorities will review this appropriately, and i will deal with the facts as uncovered in the appropriate manner. i would just encourage some members of the senate to take their time to make sure that they don't overstate what they claim and what they probably believe to be the truth. and if i did something wrong, i will go to the president and i will explain to him exactly what i did and what the findings were.

and he is the one who can ask me to stay or to go. >> cia director john brennan today with nbc's andrea mitchell at the council on foreign relations answering her question of whether these allegations of cia spying on congress are serious enough allegations that effectively they should threaten his job at cia director? joining us now, senator mark udall, democrat of colorado, a member of the senate intelligence committee. senator udall, thank you very much for being here tonight. i really appreciate your time. >> of course, rachel. if i might start, just thank you for doing what needed to be done which is to lay out the comprehensive history here. it was a dramatic and historic day today given senator feinstein's speech on the floor of the senate. she laid out the facts. facts speak loudly. if i might say this, the situation begins with the cia and it ends with the cia. and i would add one other note, i've lost confidence in director brennan, particularly because he

won't acknowledge the misdeeds and misconduct of the cia. as senator feinstein in her speech today pointed out, about six weeks ago, he acknowledged to senator feinstein and senator chambliss that the cia had, in fact, gone into the computers of our intelligence committee staff. today he denied it. i don't understand why he won't come clean. that's why i've lost confidence in director brennan. >> to be clear, you're saying that he's telling the intelligence committee, the leadership of the intelligence committee, something different in private than he's willing to admit to in public? >> that's what i only can conclude after listening to him today and also after listening to senator feinstein lay out the history with which i'm all too familiar. this is really unfortunate that we're in this situation, but as you pointed out, my roll in the intelligence committee is to be an overseer of the executive branch. that is a sacred responsibility. we are the conscience of the nation. we have to uphold the public trust.

and that role, to me, is very important. that's why when i first went on the committee some three years ago, i went about understanding the cia's program of interrogation detention which was brutal. it was ineffective. it was clumsy. it was filled with flaws. i call it torture. and we've been pushing ever since to get this report released and to clear the record because we know in america when we acknowledge our mistakes, we're the stronger for it, we're the better for it. and there were enormous mistakes made. there was a stain on our country's reputation. we can lift that by letting the truth let us free, but as long as the cia continues to stall and delay and not work with the committee in an appropriate way, we're not going to get to that point. >> do you feel like the ability of the intelligence committee to meaningfully oversee the cia has been meaningfully undermined? is this, in effect, a fight about tactics or a disagreement about access to that one internal report? but as you pointed out, my role

on the intelligence committee is to be an overseer of the executive branch. that is a sacred responsibility. we are the conscience of the nation. we have to uphold the public trust. and that role to me is very important. that's why when i first went on the committee some three years ago, i went about understanding the cia's program of interrogation detention which was brutal, it was ineffective, it was clumsy, it was filled with flaws. i call it torture. and we've been pushing ever since to get this report released and to clear the record. because we know in america when we acknowledge our mistakes, we're the stronger for it, we're the better for it. and there were enormous mistakes made. there was a stain on our country's reputation. we can let the truth let us free. but as long as the cia continue bs to stall and delay and not work with the committee in an appropriate way, we're not going to get to that point. >> do you feel like the ability of the intelligence committee to oversee the cia has been meanfully undermined? is this in effect a fight about tactics or a disagreement about access to that one internal report? or is there -- does this signify something larger that has broken down about whether or not that clandestine agency can be overseen by elected officials? >> we can oversee the agency, but it has to cooperate. it has to act in a respectful manner. i think the focus is on the latter points that you make, that there are constitutional questions here tied to the fourth amendment. there are also questions of legality. it's clear to me that there are significant reasons to believe that the cia broke the law when they searched our computers. in contrast, if i might add given your comments about the intelligence committee staff, they may have broken a rule in bringing those documents to the hill, but in bringing those documents to the hill they've complied with all the policies that the cia has when they deliver documents to the hill. you also pointed out the great fear many documents have disappeared when the cia went

into our computer systems. there was a concern that the review would also disappear. >> fascinating. it's an incredible story. we see so little of what the agencies do. we learn about most of it through things like letters from you to the president earlier this week and from these remarkable moments in congress. this is an incredible window on a very serious constitutional issue. senator mark udall, thank you. >> stay on the story. we know you will. >> absolutely. we'll be right back. your hepatitis c.forget it's slow moving, you tell yourself. i have time. after all there may be no symptoms for years. no wonder you try to push it to the back of your mind and forget it. but here's something you shouldn't forget. hepatitis c is a serious disease. if left untreated, it could lead to liver damage and potentially even liver cancer.

if you are one of the millions of people with hepatitis c, you haven't been forgotten. there's never been a better time to rethink your hep c. because people like you may benefit from scientific advances. advances that could help you move on from hep c. now is the time to rethink hep c and talk to your doctor. visit hepchope.com to find out about treatment options. and register for a personalized guide to help you prepare for a conversation with your doctor.

there was one congressional race happening in the country today. it was in florida. it was a special election. it was the only one. republican david jolly won in florida's 13th congressional district. none of the other congressional races that will happen this year are happening any time soon. none of them are going to happen for another eight months. but you know, what is time really? if you inherited a privately held oil and chemical company from your dad and you and your

brother are one of the richest men on earth and you want to spend that money to make over american politics in a way that benefits your enormous interests, then what is time to you really? i mean, most people competing in normal american political terms have to wait until they're within a few weeks or months of their election before they start buying tens of millions of dollars of tv time to try to influence that election. to trash the other side or to exalt their own side. but if you're not operating on normal american political terms, if you are the koch brothers, say, well then time is money and you've got all the money. and that means that time is always on your side. while everybody else in the country does not feel like we are having an election right now or any time soon, in places where the koch brothers have decided to throw their weight and their money around, it has not been just weeks already, but months already where they're already running ads all over the country. not just for a special election

here or there. these are ads for the november election, and they're running more than a half year in advance. trying to soften up democratic candidates, trying to hurt poll numbers and public opinion on democratic issues. and when you have got all the money in the world, you can pay for good ads. you can at least pay for effective ads. and this is an example of one of their effective ads. a koch brothers funded group called americans for prosperity has been running this ad in michigan to hurt the senate prospects of gary peters. this is a well-done, emotionally effective ad. the woman in this ad lives in michigan. he talks about getting a diagnosis for leukemia and having her old health care policy canceled under obamacare. and she says her new treatment is quote, unaffordable. she says without her medication, quote, i will die. the ad is very tough, it's riveting. and she is a real person facing

a real illness and may the woman who in this ad get well soon. nobody wishes her anything but the best. but even though that ad remains effective, it is still turning out to be a big embarrassment for the koch funded group that made it and potentially a big political problem not just for them but broadly for the republicans who are trying to capitalize on these koch funded groups that are running these campaigns. right after the ad appeared, "the washington post" fact checked it and said the woman was eligible for a plan that would include her doctor and cut her premiums in half. the paper learned about the premiums because before the ad she talked to the local detroit news. and the news suggested a different outcome running on their tv sets, the new ad, quote, are making misrepresentations. the detroit news kept digging. yesterday the paper ran another headline. look. patient who called health care unaffordable will save more than a thousand dollars.

continuing, the new plan will save $1,000 compared with her former insurance plan. the patient said the idea it would be cheaper, quote, can't be true. she said quote, i personally do not believe that. some things are apparently not believable when you don't want to believe them. koch brothers say they are not responsible for that ad. we asked them about it today. they referred us to americans for prosperity who produced the ad in which they fund. they told us the woman liked her old plan. we asked if they had heard from the koch brothers about it being debunked, we did not get an answer to that. over the past few weeks in washington, congress has been talking about holding them accountable for the ads their money buys. senate majority leader harry reid has made a point lately of calling out of koch brothers for misleading ads on obamacare. but in the states where it matters, can democrats do anything to match the kochs' campaign? can they make a meaningful counterattack?

the answer may start in alaska with this new democratic ad from mark begich. >> first it was a d.c. actress pretending ton an alaskan. now ads attacking mark begich have been called false and not true. who's behind the attacks? >> the koch brothers. >> the billionaire koch brothers. >> i do not believe them. >> just running it into the ground. >> leaving a mess. >> a lot of alaskans are losing jobs. i'm concerned about the drinking water. >> i expect them not to come up to alaska and tell us what to do. >> look, nobody on the democratic side has the fully formed strategy or the ability to spend infinitely that the koch brothers have, but that new ad for mark begich is kind of a good ad. are the democrats just going to do that here and there where they can afford to? are they going to be able to

match the kochs ad for ad? the response in that senate race in alaska is the first sign that the democrats might actually have an effective counterattack planned. can they do this everywhere? at. can they do this everywhere, because the kochs are playing everywhere. that is 2014. sflimplts good wednesday morning. right now on "first look" mystery deepens. did the missing malaysian jetliner change course midflight? authorities haven't ruled out any possible cause for its disappearance. obama care, congressional turn on the health care issue. senate versus cia. each side is shoring up defenses which might be a breach of our constitution. it could force besss to pay workers overtime. a massachusetts restaurant turned ugly. find out what started the brawl. good morning