evening. thanks for staying with us. "the rachel maddow show" begins now. >> good evening, ari. thanks, man, nice to see you. thanks to you at home for staying us with the next hour. happy friday. abc giveth and abc taketh away. new jersey governor and 2016 republican presidential hopeful chris christie at this time last week was launching his supposed comeback tour. the governor simultaneously releasing a report that he commissioned from his office's own lawyers. report which he said totally exonerated himself and the ongoing scandal over lanes to the busiest bridge in the world being shut down. as a way of the christie administration exacting some sort of political revenge against the mayor of one new jersey town. and one 24-hour period, the governor released that report, he held his first press conference on the matter since the scandal broke open in january. at the press conference he essentially said that the whole matter was over and he was relieved to put it behind him. and the governor also, this time last week, launched a media

charm offensive doing the requisite multipart and appeared on abc's "world news with diane sawyer." that was this time last week. governor christie setting off on a well staged managed let's put this all behind us tour with abc's flagship news show playing a key role in that. but now today, new late breaking news in the scandal broken of all places on abc news. this is how it was reported on wabc here in new york city. watch this. >> a new development tonight in the bridge-gate scandal in new jersey. members of governor christie's staff testified today before a federal grand jury. u.s. attorney in new jersey convening that grand jury to investigate the involvement of christie staff in the george washington bridge backup, allegedly for political retribution against the mayor of ft. lee. michael drewniak, his attorney

insists drewniak is just a witness and not the target of any investigation. >> abc breaking the news tonight that a federal grand jury has now begun hearing testimony from witnesses in the new jersey bridge scandal. this is the first time that has ever been reported. we knew that at least a preliminary inquiry had been started by federal prosecutors, but before this late breaking news tonight, we had no idea the inquiry had gone so far that they were subpoenaing members of the christie administration to appear and testify under oath before that grand jury. abc appears to have landed this scoop today by spotting a member of the christie administration at the federal courthouse in newark. they spotted michael drewnia k, the governor's press secretary, along with his lawyer. >> are you aware of when the grand jury actually began hearing testimony in this matter? >> i have no information about that. as i said, we're here because we we subpoenaed to be here today and required to cooperate and that's what we're doing.

>> does mike have any information about governor christie's personal knowledge or direct role -- >> i'm not going to comment about anything with respect to that. we're here, we're here to answer questions and that's what michael did today. >> that is michael drewniak at the end, the big bald guy on the left side of your screen. he's this famously pugnacious aggressive spokesman for chris christie. he's famous for swearing at people and screaming at people. kind of amazing just to see him standing there tight lipped and letting his lawyer do all the talking for him today. abc is characterizing this news tonight that michael drewniak had to testify to a grand jury today. they're characterizing this as confirmation for the first time that what started out as a preliminary inquiry into the governor's office has now become a criminal investigation. quoting abc, and i think it's important now they phrase this, what abc says is this. "the convening of the grand jury is evidence that the u.s. attorney's investigation has progressed beyond an inquiry and moved to the criminal phase."

i'm not sure that is true. not trying to take away from abc's scoop here, but i think the way they have phrased this and what they may be implying here may not actually be true. we knew that a federal grand jury was involved in the bridge-gate investigation already. we knew that because people had been subpoenaed to submit documents to the u.s. attorney and when a u.s. attorney wants to send out a subpoena, he has to get a grand jury to do that. so we knew there were subpoenas and that means we knew a grand jury was involved. that, itself, is not news. what abc is implying in its reporting tonight is that a new grand jury has been appointed by federal prosecutors specifically to work on the bridge-gate case. and theoretically, that may be true, but there is no evidence to suggest that that has actually happened. if a new federal grand jury had been impanel specifically to work on this one case, that would be a huge deal. despite abc's reporting, though, it does not seem like a new federal grand jury has been impanel. it seems like this is the same grand jury that's been there all

along issuing subpoenas and looking at evidence. the new development here, the real new development here, credit to abc for getting the scoop, the new thing here is that the grand jury sitting in newark that was already looking into this matter, that grand jury has moved on to a new phase of the investigation in which they are hearing testimony. witnesses are being compelled to testify before them. we do not know if michael druniak, the governor's spokesman was the first witness who had to testify or if there were other witnesses before him that we never found out about it. the u.s. attorney looking into this case has been very tight lipped, and it seems clear that mr. drewniak and his lawyer did not expect to be talking to reporters today when they were leaving the courthouse after that testimony. frankly, they both looked like they were going to barf when abc doorstoped them and started asking them these questions. this is a federal criminal inquiry into what happened on that bridge and who in governor christie's administration was in on it and whether it was a federal criminal offense. it has to be very uncomfortable

for everybody involved. most especially the governor who keeps trying to say this is all over, i want to go back to running for president. it's not over. and today's new news tells us that it is farther along and potentially even more serious than we knew before today. joining us now to help us get specific about this, help us understand what this news means is a man who is, himself, a former u.s. attorney, former federal prosecutor. kendall coffey joins us now. thank you very much for being with us tonight. i appreciate having you here. >> thanks for inviting me, raven l. >> let me ask you first if the way i explained this news makes sense to you. does that seem -- is what i just did an accurate description of what the grand jury's role would be in this proceeding? >> exactly. and i think you're also right in the sense that i don't see an indication there will be a brand new grand jury for this. it will be the same grand jury process that's been applicable all along. as you also indicated, rachel, the fact that they're now to the

point of getting a websiitness a witness who's clearly an insider under oath, that is an indication of significant movement in the process. because you don't do that at the everywhere beg very beginning. the feds don't get people in there to ask questions sort of randomly. they've done a lot of homework before bringing him in. it's part of a detailed roadmap down to the street address and the apartment number that hay are using in conducting this investigation. so whatever governor christie may have thought about where things stood last week, i think we all know that this is serious business and seriously frightening business if you're somebody who thinks they may be in the target zone of this investigation. >> mr. drewniak, his lawyer was very clear on this. we should be very clear. there's no indication that he is a target of the investigation. his lawyer is saying he's simply there as a witness. but as a matter of procedure, somebody called to testify before a grand jury, even just as a witness as mr. drewniak apparently was, do they have a choice about whether or not to

do it? is this something where you're legally compelled? >> they have a choice in the sense that somebody can take the fifth amendment. it appears here he is not. i think what we're seeing, guessing lots of speculation, the feds aren't going to say a single word about what's going on inside the federal grand jury investigation. with respect to this witness' status, what his attorney says makes a certain amount of sense. he's there as a witness. otherwise, frankly, he wouldn't be there. and the corollary to that is the feds don't bring in somebody early on typically if that person is a likely target. they want to put everything together, build up to getting somebody to cooperate, flip, turn evidence against maybe the real ultimate targets. and so while we're not at the beginning of this investigation, we're far from the end. and i think it's reasonable to conclude that up to now this particular witness is a witness no more than that. >> in terms of the new reporting today, it does seem like it was a scoop by abc who physically

was at the courthouse and saw mr. drewniak. i don't mean to speculate on the way they reported this out. but it feels like that's the way they figured out that michael drewniak was there. there was certainly no more formal announcement he was going in to give testimony to the grand jury. we've heard nothing from the u.s. attorney's office in terms of the progress of their investigation or the fact they were interviewing witnesses. do you think it's possible that other people have been testifying that were far into this process and they just haven't -- people have been able to get in and out of there without people noticing them? >> entirely possible. it sounds like somebody just stumbled into the fact this particular witness was there. but as we know, as your viewers know and as you know well, the feds have an absolute duty of secrecy with respect to what goes on inside a grand jury investigation. witnesses and their attorneys can at times talk about it if they want to. usually you're trying to make nice with the feds. the feds are telling you if you're a grand jury witness, we would prefer, strongly prefer that you don't say a word about what is covered inside this investigation to anybody.

and most of the time, if the feds tell you to, you know, stay mum about it, people aren't going to tug on superman's cape and they're going to tend to keep it very, very low key. so there could have been other witnesses. we have no idea at this point whether this was the first witness, the fifth, or one of many to come. >> former u.s. attorney kendall coffey. thank you for helping us understand this. i think it's worth being precise about the facts here and you've really helped us do that. thank you, sir. >> thanks, rachel. >> again, breaking news tonight reported late today by abc news that members of the christie administration, at least one, the governor's spokesman, has been called to testify before the federal criminal grand jury who's looking into this matter. this does not necessarily tell us something with exactitude about where the investigation has gone, but it does mean that it has progressed further than previously known. they've now moved to the point where they are investigating by interviewing witnesses, by taking testimony from witnesses

under oath at the federal courthouse in newark. we didn't know that was happening before we learned it today. all right. happy friday. we don't exactly have a best new thing in the world at the end of the show tonight but have unexpectedly good news about really terrible people who have been doing terrible things. we saved it for the end of the show tonight so you can start your weekend off well. stay with us tonight. this is going to be a fun show. s bank of america savings account to his merrill edge retirement account. before he opened his first hot chocolate stand calling winter an "underserved season". and before he quit his friend's leaf-raking business for "not offering a 401k." larry knew the importance of preparing for retirement. that's why when the time came he counted on merrill edge to streamline his investing and help him plan for the road ahead. that's the power of streamlined connections. that's merrill edge and bank of america. add vanishing deductible from nationwide insurance and get $100 off for every year of safe driving. we put members first.

join the nation. ♪ nationwide is on your side (music) defiance is in our bones. defiance never grows old. citracal maximum. calcium citrate plus d. highly soluble, easily absorbed.

you stand behind what you say. there's a saying around here, around here you don't make excuses. you make commitments. and when you can't live up to them, you own up, and make it right.

some people think the kind of accountability that thrives on so many streets in this country has gone missing in the places where it's needed most. but i know you'll still find it when you know where to look. if you've had a coke in the last 25 years, you've had a hand in giving college scholarships and support to thousands of our nation's most promising students. the nation of italy is shaped like a boot. like a fashionable high heeled boot.

not all the country fits inside the boot, though. at the end of the toe of the boot, that is sicily. that's the part of italy that sticks way out into the mediterranean sea. but italy actually goes way further south even than that. because this island way out in the middle of the mediterranean, more than 100 miles southwest of sicily is an island that is actually closer to africa than it is to mainland italy. but that little island, itself, is still part of italy. it's a tiny little island. it's about eight square miles and it's called lampadoosa. population of about 4,500 people. because it is italy, because it is part of europe and because it is only 70 miles off the coast of tunisia in africa, what lampedusa has really become is a place where immigrants from africa desperately try to get themselves to. so they can get themselves to europe. and it is only 70 miles from tunis tunisia, but that is 7 o rough miles of open ocean and something like 20,000 people are thought to have died trying to

cross that 7 o miles of open water in order to try to find their way to a better life. not long after he became the new pope of the catholic church, pope francis last year, last july, he visited lampedusa, tiny out of the way ends of the earth island. and he said mass there. he criticized what he called the globalization of indifference to immigrants and the risks they take and the ways that they die. and he tossed a wreath into the sea to recognize the 20,000 lives that have been lost, 20,000 people who have died trying to get to this tiny little island so they can get to europe. there is a reason why this new pope has been able to get so many people to take a second look at the catholic church, ri right? this week a bunch of senior leaders from the american catholic church decided to emulate what pope francis did at lampedusa by going to the place in our country where immigrants risk their lives and die trying to get here. cardinal sean o'malley of boston and eight other american

catholic bishops went to arizona this week. they walked one of the trails through the arizona desert where immigrants try to cross into this country, where many have died. like pope francis did on that italian island, they left a wreath at the border in honor of those who have died trying to cross the border. what was truly amazing, at least what was visually stunning, is that the cardinal and these eight bishops, they then celebrated mass literally on the border. you see there's this fence there behind them. it kind of looks like a wall behind them. saw there was an e3 painted on it. that is the border fence that divides negales, arizona, from negales, mexico. the mass was said in english and in spanish for congregants who sat on this side of the border and on the other side of the border in mexico. the mass included the bishops, themselves, giving communion at the height of the service through the fence. through the border fence. people reaching their hands through the fence. many of them in tears. to receive the eucharist from some of the most senior clergy from the catholic church.

>> we know that the border is lined with unmarked graves of thousands who have died alone and nameless. we are here today to say they are not forgotten. sometimes they're called illegal aliens, an expression that makes them sound like martians. but they are our neighbors. they are our brothers and sisters. >> that's cardinal o'malley from boston. one of the bishops who celebrated the border mass with cardinal o'malley this week has now written to the department of homeland security on behalf of the u.s. conference of catholic bishops asking homeland security to start limiting the number of people they deport across the border. homeland security, of course, is the agency that president obama asked to review deportation policies recently to see if deportation policies can be made any more humane. the department of homeland security says no specific timeline has been announced for when that review will be complete, but it is under way and the bishops are asking for

reform and for lenience for immigrants and there are hunger strikers in eric cantor's home district right now and it's happening in the context of this increased pressure on president obama to do whatever he can to lessen the harm caused by our screwed up broken immigration system if congress won't act, themselves. that pressure on the president apparently extended to the president's recent one-on-one conversation with the pope, himself. >> in terms of domestic issues, the two issues that we touched on other than the fact that i invited and urged him to come visit the united states telling him that people would be overjoyed to see him, was immigration reform. and, you know, as someone who came from latin america, i think he was very mindful of the plight of so many immigrants who

are wonderful people working hard, making contributions, many of their children are u.s. citizens and, yet, they still live in the shadows, in many cases, have been deported and are separated from families. >> the pope lobbying the president. the president further explained in that press conference that he told the pope in their recent meeting that he still believes that there's a chance that the u.s. congress could pass immigration reform legislation. remember, it's already passed the senate. just needs to come up for a vote in the house. the president says he still thinks it is possible john boehner might do that. nobody else seems to think that is possible. one democratic congressman who's worked intensively on this issue took to the floor of the house this week, yes, to tell republicans once again they ought to bring that bill up for a vote, they ought to pass immigration reform. congressman luis gutierrez this week went a step further and also told republicans if they do not bring it up for a vote, if they don't pass a bill, he warned republicans on the floor of the house this week that he fully expects that the president

will act alone. the president will make more changes through executive action on this issue. and, yes, that will undoubtedly freak out republicans if and when he does it, but according to congressman gutierrez, he says that is coming. >> the republicans threaten to impeach the president? what's new, mr. speaker? look, you got to remember for the first three or four years he was president, leaders in the republican party, i mean, presidential candidates and entire cable tv networks questioned the president's own immigration status. we had birthers denying the president was born in america. they wed whether he was an undocumented immigrant, himself. they demanded to see his papers. now we have deportation deniers falsely suggesting president obama is not enforcing the law. he's really not deporting people, they say. that's all fake. something obama, univision and telemundo cooked up. the president knows the kind of pain that congressional inaction

has caused for families and children. the president wants to be an emancipator, not a deporter. he will act if he has to. if you give him no choice, this president is going to take charge himself. as well he should. >> congressman luis gutierrez saying this week in congress not just that he supports immigration reform, but specifically that he believes president obama will act if congress doesn't. he was emphatic about it. he said he saw it in the president's eyes when he met with him on this issue. and, of course, none of us put mush stock anymore on what politicians see in each other's eyes. thank you, george bush and vladimir putin. congressman luis gutierrez isn't the first person to say something like this about what he's expecting from president obama. this is essentially the word on the street about immigration reform, that president obama is going to do it himself to the extent that he can. he's going to use his executive powers more than he already has to make some significant changes on deportations and on immigration policy overall.

is that prospect scary enough to republicans that it might goose them into acting, themselves, in congress, or are republicans absolutely done on this issue? if the rumors are true that the president has more that he's going to do on this issue, acting alone, what can he do acting alone, and when's he going to do it? tick tock. watch this space. vert ops? double agents? spy thriller? you don't know "aarp" thanks to the aarp tek program, this guy is spying on his new grandson. aarp tek gets people better connected to technology, to better connect with each other. with social media, digital devices and apps. if you don't think "hashtag love dad" when you think aarp, then you don't know "aarp" find more surprising possibilities and get to know us at aarp.org/possibilities

this is the mugshot for the

man who until recently was the republican majority leader in the wisconsin assembly. we have a mugshot for him because he's now been charged with two counts of felony second degree sexual assault. and those charges were enough to get wisconsin republicans to vote to make him not their majority leader anymore. those charges were not enough to get republicans to kick him out of the legislature. look at the new headline. look. "republicans back off their efforts to expel him from the legislature." want to see the mugshot again? yeah. they're keeping this guy. two counts of felony second degree sexual assault. they're keeping him in the legislature. yeah, this is a problem for wisconsin republicans right now. but it is not only a problem for wisconsin republicans and that story is coming up. stay with us.

there's no dip in that bowl. they're new pringles tortillas. so good, they don't need dip. mmmm... not bad, right? i'll have some more! that's a double dip! you... double dipped... new pringles tortillas. you dip 'em or don't. pringles!

turns out it is not $7.1 million, it is $10 million at least. on tuesday president obama and a quite ostentatiously excited vice president joe biden appeared in the rose garden to take a bit of a victory lap on the signature legislation of this presidency. obamacare. it had been projected by the

counters that if obamacare was on track, 6 million people would have to sign up for private insurance by monday of this week by the end of the enrollment period. they originally said it needed to be 7 million people. they revised that number down to 6 million when they had all those initial troubles with the website. come monday, come the deadline, not only did they hit 6 million, they hit 7.1 million. and joe biden was able to stand behind the president with happy fingers, woo, we did it. they got their standing ovations and the president got to announce that the law was here to stay. well, today they fleshed out the enrollment numbers a bit further releasing the news in addition to the 7.1 million people who signed up for private insurance under obamacare, about 3 million people at least got new health insurance through medicaid. so that gets us up and over 10 million enrollees and counting. no matter how vociferously republicans have denounced this thing from the very beginning, it worked. and this week is going to be remembered as a very important week in american politics

because of that. before this week, the only two things that were sure about american electoral politics this year was that "a," republicans are running on a much better map than the democrats are this year. they've got basically a structural advantage in both the house and the senate heading into this year's election. and that is still true. but "b," the other thing that we knew before this week was that every republican in the country was going to run basically the exact same campaign this year. vote for me. i'm against obamacare. and that was the basic truth, right, about what it means to be a republican running for office. running for re-election in 2014. they're going to run against obamacare. that, this week, just got a little bit wobbly. because there really are millions of people who did not have health insurance before who have it now because of this law. and we know as of this week that the law is working and it is hitting its targets. and, yeah, some republicans running in some places will still shoot at the obamacare bill in their ads. right? they'll still be running

campaigns that are all about how terrible obamacare is. but not every republican, not anymore. that is no longer a given that that will be the campaign that every republican runs. just look at the beltway press. just this week. look at politico.com. their big splash headline all day long after the president's happy announcement in the rose garden about the 7 million signups. look at their headline. "aca critics: homina, homina, homina." as proof that president barack obama's brand of liberalism doesn't work. on tuesday, obamacare signups passed 7 million. now the law's opponents aren't about to say that critique was wrong, but they have lost the best evidence that they had. look at "the hill" as well. "gop gets obamacare angst." "anxious senate republicans are worried party leaders are focusing too much this election year on obamacare. gop strategists warn party leaders not to put all their eggs into the obamacare basket if they want to capture as many

democratic seats as possible in november. republican operatives say gop leaders would be wise to shift some of their emphasis away from obamacare now that the enrollment deadline has passed and now that the enrollment target has been surpassed." but if this is no longer going to be a single issue obamacare-only election, that election that everybody expected before this week, then what's it going to be instead? what's going to try to fill that vacuum as obamacare deflates as an issue? the newly re-energized democrats apparently would like it to be something that drives voter turnout. since that is their big challenge in any midterm election year, they particularly think it's their challenge this year. the democrats apparently think they've got a silver bullet issue that will do that work for them. the day after president obama took his rose garden victory lap, he went out and did an old school campaign-style event with the democratic senate candidate this year in michigan. congressman gary peters. now, the senate seat in michigan

is an open seat. the seat carl levin is retiring from. it's going to be a hard seat for democrats to hold. this michigan polling from february shows gary peters trailing republican terri lynn land by three points. look at this from the same poll. gary peters may be down by three against the republican candidate, but there is a democratic skewed issue headed for the ballot in michigan that's not only leading, it's leading by 24 points. the polling in michigan is 60-36 in favor of raising the minimum wage. everybody says this year that senate candidates and congressional candidates are all keeping their distance from president obama this year. that no democrat wants to do a campaign event with him. this week, there was gary peters with president obama coming down the steps of air force one in michigan. and what issue was the subject of the gary peters/barack obama campaign rally in michigan? it was really 100% all about the issue of the minimum wage. and the president could not have been happier to talk about it.

>> before i came here today, i stopped at zingerman's which is the -- which is the right thing to do when you're in ann arbor. i stopped for two reasons. the first is, the ruben is killer. so i ordered, like, the small, and it didn't look that small. so i gave half to valerie jarrett who's traveling with us and then after i finished the half, i wanted the half back. but it was -- it was too -- it was too late. all she had left was the pickle. so i took the pickle. but, so one of the reasons i went was because sandwiches are outstanding. the second reason, though, is

zingerman's is a business that treats its workers well. and rewards honest work with honest wages. and that's worth celebrating. and that's what i'm here to talk about today. how do we rebuild an economy that creates jobs and opportunities for every american? and i want to focus on something a lot of people in michigan are working very hard to accomplish right now, and that is raising the minimum wage to help more folks get ahead. >> if this sounds like president obama back in campaign mode, this was absolutely president obama back in campaign mode. one point in the speech this week, he called out congressman gary peters by name as a champion of raising the minimum wage. he told everybody in the audience they should call the politicians who represent them in michigan and ask them if they support raising the minimum wage. it's because when democrats talk about the issue of raising the minimum wage, they not only like

to talk about why they think it makes good economic sense, they also like to just talk about the fact that it's a really, really popular thing that republicans basically don't want to do. >> you would think this would be a no brainer. politically, you'd think that folks would be rushing to do this. nearly three in four americans support raising the minimum wage. nearly three in four. here's the problem. republicans in congress, not republicans out in america, because some of them get paid the minimum wage, so they want to see a raise. republicans in congress don't want to vote to raise it at all. in fact, some want to just scrap the minimum wage. one house republican said it's outlived its usefulness. no, that's what he said. others said -- no, don't boo, organize.

[ applause ] so that's what you need to do. because they -- they may not hear the boos, but they can read a petition and they can see votes. you've got some republicans saying we shouldn't raise the minimum wage because -- they said this. because, well, it just helps young people. now, first of all, i think it's pretty good to help young people. i don't know what's wrong with helping young people. folks who say that probably, next thing you know they'll say, get off my lawn. i think it's okay to help young people. >> and that is the whole game right there for democrats. think the president is happy to be talking a ining about this i? the president is happy to be talking about this issue. this week when obamacare had its

big public success, republicans lost the unifying slam dunk issue they were all going to run on this year, that they were going to run against obamacare as a failed policy. that happened this week, and this week democrats jumped in two feet totally behind trying to make this election also about a totally different issue which is the minimum wage. and it's no accident that president obama was at the university of michigan talking about this. right? talking to this very young audience about how much the minimum wage would help young people and how democrats want to help young people even if republicans don't want to help young people. i mean, democrats need their core voters including young voters to turn out in midterm elections this year in way bigger numbers than they usually do. when the president talked about signing petitions on the minimum wage and how politicians recognized that, that is specifically because in michigan they are right now trying to get hundreds of thousands of signatures in that state in order to get raising the minimum wage on to the ballot this november. so it can be on the same ballot right alongside the name gary

peters, democrat for u.s. senate. and the democrats want to do that, not only because they do want to raise the minimum wage as a matter of policy, democrats also believe that getting people to turn out to vote for that very popular issue will drive democratic turnout, and it will, therefore, in a broader sense help democratic candidates win. democrats in 34 states are moving in one way or another t o increase the minimum wage. in addition to what they're doing in washington. it's one thing to do able to see how democrats are trying to fill the vacuum with another issue, as obamacare deflates a little as an issue. but is there reason to believe that this issue, that this minimum wage issue, could drive turnout in the way democrats need it to? if they have any hope of winning that seat in michigan, and enough of the other seats across the country that will determine the fate of congress and this president's last two years in office. joining us now is jeff list, he's a democratic pollster who's worked on these issues. thank you for being here.

>> always good to see you. >> tactically speaking, can the issue of raising the minimum wage goose turnout in a way democrats are hoping you will? >> first to acknowledge there are 3.6 million americans who are making the minimum wage. it's possible to work full time and still be in poverty. so raising the minimum wage is first and foremost important for those americans. i think once you look beyond that, it's not just americans who make the minimum wage who are important targets for the minimum wage issue. because even if the middle class, people are working harder, their productivity is rising, but their wages are flat and as a profound sense of economic unfairness that they're working harder and can't get ahead. and when you talk about the minimum wage, you're articulating values of basic economic fairness that resonate with people who are making well over the minimum wage. >> so it helps democrats, you're saying, position themselves in the contest, position themselves in the argument in a way that's solid for them even if it's not

specifically on one specific ballot issue or on a specific piece of legislation? >> right. there's no question that people who make the minimum wage who are disproportionately women, disproportionately over 20 and single women are an important turnout target for democrats. i think as an issue, and as an issue that you can message around, minimum wage fits in with things like earned sick days, with things like equal pay for women who earn 77 cents on the dollar for what a man earns for doing the same job. they combine to tell a broader story of economic fairness. when democrats are successful at telling that story, they win elections. >> one of the things that people who study the minimum wage as a democratic turnout effort always point to is a bunch of elections in 2006. 2006 was a good year for democrats, but in a couple of states like i'm thinking missouri and in montana, there were senate races in those states, jon tester's senate

race, claire mccaskill's senate race where it was thought they didn't really necessarily have a shot and there were minimum wage issues on the ballot alongside those candidates that year that won by mega margins. 50- and 60-point margins. when you have two points on the ballot and one is winning by that much more, does it drag others races along with it? >> i think it does if you have one candidate on one side of the issue and another who's on another. >> right. >> it's a simple way of saying not only whose side you're on but whose side your opponent is not on, being the working people of the state. it also provides a valuable organizing tool. it provides a tool you can use when you're going door to door, building the kind of ground game that's important to win in a state like missouri. >> well, on that point, from republicans' perspective, if republicans in washington are trying to block the minimum wage and they're seen as being against the minimum wage, president obama clearly making that case in michigan. if an individual republican candidate somewhere, michigan, or somewhere else comes out and says, yes, i actually am for

raising the minimum wage though the rest of my party isn't, can they benefit? does the one party get tarred as for it and one party get tarred as against it? >> i think if you are a republican and have the courage to come out in favor of it, i think it says something about you economically. i think that president obama brought this up as well. it's not rank and file republicans out in america who are opposed to raising the -- >> not with 75% support. right. >> you've got a majority of republicans who support raising the minimum wage, and it's only in washington, d.c., that you've got a big disconnect with the republican leadership. >> jeff liszt, democratic pollster. thanks for helping us understand this. >> thanks for having me. charles dickens, turns out charles dickens is absolutely disgusted with wisconsin. and he has put it in writing and it's really weird and that story is coming up. stay with us. in the nation, we reward safe driving. add vanishing deductible from nationwide insurance and get $100 off for every year of safe driving. we put members first. join the nation. ♪ nationwide is on your side

[ girl ] my mom, she makes underwater fans that are powered by the moon. ♪ she can print amazing things, right from her computer. [ whirring ] [ train whistle blows ] she makes trains that are friends with trees. ♪ my mom works at ge. ♪ so, what'd you think of the house? did you see the school rating? oh, you're right. hey, babe, i got to go. bye, daddy. have a good day at school, okay? ♪ [ man ] but what about when my parents visit?

okay. just love this one. it's next to a park. [ man ] i love it. i love it, too. here's your new house. ♪ daddy! [ male announcer ] you're not just looking for a house. you're looking for a place for your life to happen. zillow. until you're sure you do. bartender: thanks, captain obvious. co: which is what makes using the hotels.com mobile app so useful. i can book a nearby hotel room from wherever i am. or, i could not book a hotel room and put my cellphone back into my pocket as if nothing happened. hotels.com. i don't need it right now. you're an emailing, texting, master of the digital universe.

but do you protect yourself? ♪ apparently not. when you access everything, you give everyone access to everything about you. but that's ok. while you do your thing... [ alert rings ] we'll be here at lifelock, doing our thing. watching out for things your credit card alone can't. [ alert rings ] and relentlessly protecting your identity. get lifelock protection and live life free. [ alert rings ]

okay. in 1842, there were 26 states in the union. slavery was still legal. the civil war wouldn't be fought for another two decades. and a famous british author named charles dickens came to visit america. the book he wrote about his travels in america in 1842 was called "american notes for general circulation." and in the book, mr. dickens wrote about a lot of the things he loved about the united states. he loved boston. he loved democracy. he loved our small "r" republican institutions.

mr. dickens also thought slavery in particular made us a pretty brutal country. and he wrote in "american notes" you could see the brutalizing effect of slavery in this country in the ways we conducted ourselves even when slaves weren't directly involved. for example, charles dickens included in his book, request "american notes" an account he read in a newspaper while he was here. it was an account about wisconsin politicians shooting each other. february 11, 1842, and wisconsin legislators were debating the appointment of a flu sheriff in grant county, wisconsin. according to dicken, quote, in the course of the debate, mr. charles c.p. arnt made some statements that mr. r. vineyard pronounced false. he made use of violent and insulting language. after the adjournment mr. arnt requested mr. vineyard to retract what he said. mr. vineyard refused to retract and repeated the words.

mr. arnt struck a blow. mr. vineyard took a pistol and shot mr. arnt dead. on february 11, 1842, one wisconsin legislator shot dead another legislator who had offended him in a debate. he did it in front of everyone. and that is how james r. vineyard earned the distinction of becoming the first lawmaker in the territorial of wisconsin to become expelled from office. it turns out it's also a way to offend visiting famous authors who write a publication to show what savages these americans are. but back in 1842, at least wisconsin did have the good taste to throw the guy out of office after he did the shooting. they just didn't pretend it didn't happen. if you go to the wisconsin historical society today, you can see the actual vest that was worn by charles arnt when he got shot in that argument.

that handy little arrow pointing out the bullet hole. wisconsin is owning up to this thing. they've got the vest on display and they threw out the guy who did the shooting. bad behavior in legislatures, of course, did not stop back in 184 2. even really seriously bad behavior in legislatures. and the challenge that remains for our politicians today is that they really do need to throw people out of politics. they need to throw people out of the legislature when those people do really and terrible things. some have a harder time with this than others. but tonight we have some long awaited and unexpectedly good news about an unexpectedly terrible u.s. state. charles dickens would still be disgusted with what they've done b, but at least some of our particularly terrible 21st century politicians are getting thrown out of politics, and that good news story is next.

♪ you've played a part in building our global recycling program. ♪

an important update on the saga on why the word politician has become an insult in our country. and how we can possibly start to tirn that around. we're at the start of the month of april, right? the start of the fourth month of year. and that's a very hopeful time, it turns out, in the great state of california, because it means that california gets another shot, california gets a fourth try at getting through a whole calendar month in 2014 without another california senator getting indicted or convicted on multiple felony criminal charges. april so far is a clean slate. maybe this will be the first month that we make it, you guys. because in january, month 1, it was democratic senator roderick wright who was convicted of not one, not two, but eight felonies. then came month number two,

february. this time it was ron calderon, charged with 24 counts of corruption. he pled not guilty to all of them and of course, everyone is presumed innocent, but the fact remains he's currently under indictment on 24 felony charges. then it was month three. in like a lion. democratic state senator leland yee indicted on seven federal felony charges including multiple corruption counts and also gun running. gun running? seriously? yes, gun running. all told, he's looking at a potential $125 years in prison. did i mention that one of the gun running charges was about him obtaining shoulder-fired missiles for an undercover fbi agent? so yeah, that's how the first three months of the year have gone for california state senate democrats. how's your 20124 so far? here's the thing, though. one senator was not only

indicted but convicted. his fellow democrats stripped him, but when it came time to vote on kicking him out of the senate, they voted him no. the president of the state senate about that vote said, quote, the integrity of this institution cannot tolerate a convicted felon in its ranks? but at this time, senator wright is not a convicted felon. yes, actually, senator wright totally was a convicted felon. when you're convicted of eight felonies, that means you're literally aoofelon. then when the second guy got arrested and indicted on 24 counts, he, too, was allowed to take a leave of absence, but his fellow democrats decided not to kick him out of the senate. then when a third month rolled around and a third senator was indi charged, the question was not oh, my god, what's going on in the california state senate, the

question came on no, seriously, what is going on in the california state senate? it's one thing to have a terrible problem where all your senators are being arrested all the time, but it is another thing entirely for there to be a state legislature where getting arrested and indicted or even convicted on multiple felony counts doesn't cause you to lose your job. you get to keep being a senator. how can that be? we reported last week on the third arrest of a california state senator in as many months, and while i can happily report now that four days into the month of april, four days into month four, there has not yet been another senator arrested, i can also report that the california senate has finally decided that the trifecta here was maybe too embarrassing and so this past week, they finally voted to suspend these three guys from the senate. amazingly, they're still being paid, but at least they're suspended and they are no longer serving senators in the most populous state in the union while felony charges are pending

against them, or while they have just been convicted of felony charges. it is amazing that it was this hard to do it. but california is now inching along, and the word politician is still an insult in our country, but at least for now in california, it's know longer an expleti expletive, it's just still an insult. stay tuned, though. month is still young and california is a big place. that does it for us tonight. we'll see you again monday night. now, make a legislator and go to prison. >> due to mature subject matter, view viewer discretion is advised. >> a cell search results in some heated words. >> later on we're going to fi