sense of humor. >> all right. julia collins, you get the championship up for 20 games, and you get tonight's last word. thank you very much. >> all right. well, thank you. starts right now. goodbye, gitmo. let's play "hardball." >> good evening pip'm chris matthews in washington. let's look at the terms of trade. the taliban who took a soldier prisoner got five of the most dangerous terrorists we had in our hands. we don't know where this soldier we got back stands on the war in afghanistan, we can bet on the loyalties of the five we let go.

after all these years in gitmo is there any doubt who they will be ruling with? the only question is what role will they play? and yes, all that being said, all the danger to our country in the future, do we leave a soldier in enemy hands if we have a chance to free him? do we? tonight, the brutal choice president obama made? a choice he will now have to stand up to long after he left office. our msnbc contributor, jeb kim dozier covered the war in afghanistan and was critically injured herself covering that war in iraq. after five years in afghanistan, bowe bergdahl was flown into germany. at their home in idaho, the parents spoke to their son through the media. let's watch. >> five years is a seemingly endless long time. but you've made it.

i imagine you're more patient and compassionate than ever. you are free. freedom is yours. i will see you soon, my beloved son. i love you, bowe. >> i want you to know that i love you. i'm proud of you. i'm so proud of your character. i'm so proud of your patience and your perseverance. >> he was not the typical enlistee. bergdahl first tried to join the french foreign legion and the fellow soldiers described his behavior as odd. before deploys to afghanistan, he reportedly told one soldier, if this is lame, i'm going to walk off into the mountains of pakistan. he grew disillusioned with the mission once he was there. he e-mailed his parents shortly before his disappearance, the future is too good to waste on lies and too short to care about the damnation of others as well as spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong.

i have seen their ideas, and i am ashamed to even be an american. the horror of the self-righteous arrogance they thrive in, it's revolting. i'm sorry for everything here. these people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid that they have no idea how to live. well, meanwhile yesterday, bergdahl's father, bob, made this somewhat cryptic statement. let's watch. >> i'm proud of how much you wanted to help the afghan people and what you were willing to do to go to length. >> thank you very much. kim, do you have any idea what he meant there? did he mean sort of leaving his post, leaving his rifle and uniform behind, being picked up by the taliban. what did he mean about helping the afghan people in that process? i don't quite get that. >> the bergdahls have been without their son for five years

and they have engaged in an outreach program to the taliban through intermediaries, getting from the taliban proof of life videos and delivering letters to their son. i don't know how many letters. >> is that the afghan people they mean? >> this has been part of their process to get bowe home. so they're still talking that way. now, we're going to have to hear from bergdahl himself when he gets out of the hospital. there are a lot of his fellow soldiers who helped on raids and rescue missions to try to get him out who are angry. they have questions about why he walked off the base. they would like to see an investigation. but u.s. officials i've spoken to say there's not going to be an investigation and in terms of why you rescue him, he was a u.s. soldier in uniform -- >> he wasn't in uniform. he left the uniform behind. >> he was a serving u.s. soldier -- >> but he left his post and he said -- this is what i don't understand. was he awol? and if not, why not.

why didn't they declare him missing. he walked into enemy hands, apparently not on purpose, but he was headsing out into the country. >> because they couldn't ask him why he left. and in the proof of life videos, he asked for help from the u.s. government to come home. on the strength of that, they couldn't leave him out there. and also, the u.s. presence shrinking, they had to check on his health and well being remotely. sometimes through spies, sometimes electronically. they knew they would be losing access to that. their clock was running out on a chance to get him out. >> what was your sense? can you report on what the military feels about all of this? do they feel it's right to release five reasonably dangerous people, one could argue. they've been kept at gitmo. we didn't want too try them, but we can't release them. >> the u.s. is not monolithic. some will say this is how wars

end. >> wars end? >> they end in negotiation with your enemies. >> no, no. is this a war-ending negotiation? >> they saw this as part of the steps of withdrawing from afghanistan. reaching out to the taliban, making a trade and that possibly this would kick start reconciliation talks with the afghan government. >> have you got that from anybody? >> i got that from a couple, yes. >> how high up are they saying this will lead to a peace treaty with the taliban? >> they don't go that far. they hope this will be a trust-building measure that will help the taliban start talking again with the afghan government. >> i just wonder what that -- women have to now coffered up. their face has to be covered up. no more movies over there. they blow up buddhas again. >> women don't have to be covered up. >> if the taliban gets power again. what kind of deal are we striking with these people?

>> not if the taliban becomes a political party that runs in the next election. that is the u.s. -- the ideal situation. >> in other words, they are democratic forces now. they accept democracy. >> they're not there yet, but that's what every administration -- >> this is definitely hopeful thinking. anyway, on sunday, chuck hagel responded to critics who said the administration was negotiating with terrorists. let's watch chuck hagel. sergeant bergdahl is a member of the united states army. he was a in a prisoner exchange. i don't think what we did in getting our prisoner of war released in any way would somehow encourage terrorists to take our american servicemen prisoner or hostage.

>> sot critics question whether the price was too high for somebody who it's been widely reported walked off base. >> there's a lot of reporting that he wasn't taken in battle, he was -- he may have cooperating with the enemy. soldiers died trying to find him. it's one thing to exchange terrorists for a real p.o.w. fighting for our country. it's another thing to exchange five high-ranking terrorists when he walked away. >> we wept to war in afghanistan because the taliban was in power. we killed a lot of taliban people. took over the country, turned it over to karzai's crowd, and basically we continued to fight our soldiers over there right through this moment. we are killing taliban if they're coming at us. they're killing us if they get their chance. we're giving five of the most dangerous call pan people back

in exchange for a soldier who walked intost by leaving his post. does it make sense? >> it makes sense to me, in my mind as a former marine, we leave no man behind. we don't call fie that. didn't he leave his unit behind? >> he was still a u.s. soldier. he was still a u.s. citizen and we don't needive leave him behind. what happens when he comes home after he's medically discharged and we're able to assess what happened to him? then maybe. just maybe there are charges. i think five years with taliban is probably painful enough. >> that's your judgment. >> he left his uniform behind, his rifle behind and he told people if he didn't like the mission he was headed to pakistan. what was he doing? >> we also don't know what his mental state was that evening. we don't know what the duty of care was by his unit to him to keep him on that base. i mean, there are arrest in quarters in units. we don't know what the

responsibility was. i think we let the facts come out. the notion that we needed to put people in harm's way in order to get him home, that's our responsibility and that's what we sign up for. we know somebody sometime is coming for us. >> let's talk about politics not the marine units involved. everybody over there is serving their country nobly and courageously. at the top, the united states government is in war with the taliban. went in that country to overthrow the taliban. now we're sending five of the killers back to where they came from, and there's no doubt they're too dangerous to try, too dangerous to let go. that's why we have gitmo. sending them back over there to do what? >> george bush let go 540. the israelis in exchange for one. and so these trades do happen. and politically, there are very difficult. but to say that this presidency or this administration did not

do the appropriate assessments to make certain that these people are held in qatar for a year and that there are some precautions -- >> why a year? what kind of deal is a year we won't let somebody kill you. what kind of deal is that? they can't do anything for a year. you don't make those deals. my question is this, the reporting if any one of those five guys is tied into a terrorist operation for the rest of our lives, or the rest of the president's life, who is going to get blamed? >> the obama administration. but think of it another way. if they're now heading back in a year to afghanistan, you think they're not going to get watched? i've already spoken to people in the intelligence and special operations world who were just waiting to -- >> how are you going to follow them? >> see who they call, see who they e-mail. there are other ways to finish this story. >> literally, can you tag them?

>> i -- i think it's classified. no, i don't think you can tag them. >> oh, we'll kill them in the field. we'll catch them coming back. we have a lot of confidence in our intelligence that we can catch these guys. >> it's not my confidence in the intelligence folks. it's the people i'm speaking to saying we've made the best of a bad situation, we got an american soldier home, we'll figure it out from here. >> i think you might be wrong. we'll see. thank you. coming up, who are those five guys, the ones being called the worst of the worst and were released as part of this deal. does the president trust them not to fight? or does he trust us, as i said, to kill them if they try? plus, president obama's new regulations to fight climate change could become his biggest domestic policy achievement. but his opponents are determining war on coal. but democrats may pay a price in november in coal-producing state urks in especially good old kentucky. and tomorrow's republican senate primary, four people have been arrested for doing dirty work to

the tea party down there. does this give some small chance after tomorrow night to the democrats? finally, laura ingraham versus bob woodward on benghazi. 

>> president obama is headed off to a trip to europe tonight and he'll meet face to face with vladimir putin for the first time since the crisis in ukraine started. ehe'll also mark the 70th anniversary of d-day this friday at normandy.

gridlock. teacher layoffs. and a 60 billion dollar budget deficit. that's what john perez faced when he became speaker of the california assembly. so he partnered with governor brown to pass three balanced budgets, on time. for the first time in thirty years. today, the deficits are gone and we've invested

an additional 2 billion dollars in education. now john perez is running for controller, to keep fighting for balanced budgets. democrat john perez for controller. a broader mix of energies, world needs to move, to keep warm, to make clay piggies. that's why we are supplying natural gas, to generate cleaner electricity, that has around 50% fewer co2 emissions than coal. let's broaden the world's energy mix, let's go. >> the five guantanamo detainees are not a collection of low-level operatives accidentally swept up in a dragnet. these are five very bad guys. nbc news pentagon correspondent

jim miklashefski put it in stark terms exactly who we let go. >> u.s. military officials tell nbc news the five top taliban leadered freed are considered among the most dangerous in guantanamo bay. in secret documents obtained by wiki leak, all five were classified as high risk likely threat to the u.s. and are recommended for continued detention. >> well, this video posted on the internet appears to show the former detainees greeted with hugs as they returned to as they're going to remain under house arrest for at least a year. the release of these five detainees was a steep price to pay for bergdahl and counts a lot on the government of qatar to keep them detained for at least a year. evan, start with you. if you trust these guys no the

to go back into battle against us and begin to try to kill our people again out of revenge if nothing else, why do you set this sort of year -- this arbitrary year in which they're supposedly under detention of some kind or house arrest in qatar? >> well, look, it's exactly a year left for the u.s. fors before our withdrawal from afghanistan. even after the withdrawals, that doesn't mean we won't have diplomats there or aide workers, or individual americans. unfortunately the problem is that even if u.s. soldiers aren't being targeted, i don't think we have much of a promise that the taliban won't continue to target americans in general even after we leave. >> what would be the thinking,er mr. mudd, as to what they will do with their lives if not engaged in terrorism. are they going to teach school? become schumackers or shepherds? aren't these hardened terrorists who do terrorism for a liing and for a life?

isn't that what they are and what they do? terrorism? >> sort of. but let's not characterize terrorism the same as insurgency. when we went into 56 afghanistan, they captured those guy, a soldier on a battlefield, we had their soldiers captured on the battlefield in gitmo. these are two military adversaries traded and five of them are going to go back to the battlefield to conduct an insurgency, maybe to conduct acts of terrorism. but they're going to go back to the insurgency group that existed pre 9/11. >> won't they be a danger to our u.s. forces? >> sure they will. they're not going to go back until most forces are gone, but if we want to anticipate that negotiating with a group that doesn't respect the laws of war, that these guys aren't going to go back to the battlefield, we're nuts. i think the calculation you referred to as murky.

i don't think it's murky. the calculation was we're engaged in a 13-year battle with an adversary on a battlefield and we just did a battlefield exchange. one to five. >> and to what effect? what's the win for us in this, in exchanging and letting those five dangerous guys go who have basically sworn themselves against us, what's the gain here in letting those five guys go? >> well, two things. first of all, the gain is pretty simple. i don't care if this guy went awol. that's not a fact. the fact is that he was a u.s. person captured on a battlefield and it's our responsibility to bridge him home. before we talk about danger to american citizens and precedence under a democratic president, let's go back to the 1980s. we negotiated with the deadliest group, iran, for the return of hostages in lebanon. if you want to get into murkiness, go back to the 1980s. >> we kicked the hell out of him for doing that. and most americans found that awful.

he there may be moral equivalence here, i may buy that. >> i didn't say it was forgotten. if you want to say this precedent was set on june 1 of 2k0 14, that's not true. let me make one critical point here, though. if you think this precedence hasn't already been in the past five years, you're wrong. the rate of recidivism is 30 to 40%. they've already gone back in places like yemen. this ain't nothing new. these guys are just higher profile because of who they are. >> just help me out here, are you for or against this deal? >> i'm for the deal. you can not leave this guy on a battlefield and the exchange of prisoners on a battlefield between adversaries predates united states.

it goes back to the beginning of warfare. >> it would have been more appropriate to make this exchange in exchange with a real peace with the taliban or a guarantee the taliban would no longer associate themselves with al qaeda. now, i don't know if that deal could be reached but that would make a lot more sense. if you have high-ranking taliban detainees who have associations with al qaeda, one of whom had close links to al qaeda and we're worried about them coming after us again, presumably the one guarantee we can have is the taliban said we're not associated with al qaeda anymore, then it wouldn't matter. i think that's what happened here. that's the problem. if they had been released as part of a larger deal where we got back bergdahl, there was a peace agreement, there was a renouncement of al qaeda, that would have made a lot more sense. >> come on now. that's a great idea. you go to the taliban and say we'll give you a couple of chumps. give us back your biggest calling guy, bowe bergdahl. that makes great sense talking up about this on msnbc,ing butt's not going to work.

this was the taliban interior minister. these people were the equivalent of four-star generals in the taliban army and we gave back five of them. that might have been a wise decision tra stra teejically, but let's not kid ourselves. they got a very good deal out of this. they got very important people back they weren't expecting to get back anytime soon. >> this is a good faith gesture that could lead to a larger negotiation with the taliban. i heard hibts of this that this may be a reverse of previous kinds of negotiations like the prisoner exchange of the vietnamese. my question here, is there a chance this will lead to larger noexs which would justify the moral murkiness of the deal. >> i'm skeptical about the concept of the broadest strategy. the president said how quickly we're going to pull pull out.

governments in to kabul do not have a lot of influence in the outer provinces. the taliban does. they're brutal. they showed how they can use that influence back before we moved in in 2001. they're on the verge before the stupidity of al qaeda attacks of taking over the entire country to believe that we have some kind of card to play as we leave to negotiate with a resurgent taliban to me makes a lot of sense. >> here's a final question to you. there's a lot of talk on all levels of this thing, a lot of angles, do we have the ability to track these five people after the year is up and see if they go back to afghanistan and kill them in the field? >> well, look, there are methods we can do this, but they haven't stopped taliban members from gitmo who were released previously from rejoining the taliban and fighting against us. they didn't stop the saudis, brought back to saudi arabia and were carefully catered to by the saudi government from joining

aqap in yemen. i think the answer is that it's a huge risk. we're taking a risk. it might be a good risk for a good cause, it might be the start of a giant peace negotiation that we're only seeing bits of behind the scenes, but there's no doubt, no matter how you look at this, no matter what's going on behind the scenes that we don't see, there are some very serious risks associated with this policy. i hope they work out for us, but let's be honest, these guys are dangerous individuals. they're wanted by the united nations for war crimes. one of them was asked by gitmo interrogators whether he regretted killing thousands of innocent people in northern afghanistan he said well, it was part of what we had to do to establish our ideal state. this is in 200le he said this. not 2001. so these guys aren't really that regretful. they don't seem to be that reticent to pursue the same path they were doing before. >> here we are, the president of the united states, i do believe had to make this decision. it wasn't a congressional decision. but having made the decision,

it's on his head. and that's a challenge for history. thank you very much, phillip mudd for your passion and concern and evan cohen as always. >> what happens when the rnc accidentally promotes a democrat? [ heart beating, monitor beeping ] woman: what do you mean, homeowners insurance doesn't cover floods? [ heart rate increases ] man: a few inches of water caused all this? [ heart rate increases ] woman #2: but i don't even live near the water.

what you don't know about flood insurance may shock you -- including the fact that a preferred risk policy starts as low as $129 a year. for an agent, call the number that appears on your screen.

president obama announced his timetable to withdraw the remaining american forces. the process of drawing down the troops is just too incremental and protracted. here's what john oliver had to say about that last night. >> december 2015 just under 5,000 troops. and the plan actually goes beyond that. by december 2016, it says we'll have 1,000 troops tops, but

basically we're out. not like out, out, but you you know, pretty much out. by march 2017, 300 uniforms on mannequins, but no actual troops except for five troops and 7,000 heavily armed american tourists on visas. america's official policy is, we're just about to leave after -- afghanistan and we always will be. >> next up, an exchange of barbs on fox news as laura ingraham cried benghazi one too many times. her co-panelist, the great bob woodward wasn't having it and he didn't hesitate to let her know. >> if you look at the record, you have to give obama some credit. he's protected the country and we have not had another war, or unnecessary --

>> didn't protect the benghazi diplomatic mission on 9/11/12. we kind of failed on that regard. >> you're underscoring that this will never go away, at least with you. >> well, no. i don't think it's funny. >> wow. martin o'malley of maryland appeared to get an endorsement from across the aisle on friday night when the republican national committee chairman reince priebus showed the gofr nor behind a veteran. the tweet was definitely not intended as a bipartisan gesture. the rnc quickly realized their error and deleted it, but not before an o'malley spokesperson issued this tongue in cheek response. thanks to reince and the gop for saluting governor o'malley's commitment in vets in latest info graphic. bipartisanship at its best. up next, the republicans' latest

position on climate change. if i told you that a free ten-second test

could mean less waiting for things like security backups and file downloads you'd take that test, right? well, what are you waiting for? you could literally be done with the test by now. now you could have done it twice. this is awkward. check your speed. see how fast your internet can be. switch now and add voice and tv for $34.90. comcast business built for business.

welcome back to "hardball." "the new york times" is calling it one of the biggest steps any american president has ever taken on climate change. president obama has directed the epa to come up with new rules to slash carbon emissions at all u.s. power plants by 2030. largely because of our reliance on coal, u.s. power plants are the single largest source of carbon pollution in the u.s. speaker john boehner didn't hold back in showing his party's disdain for it saying, quote,er the president's plan is nuts. there's really no more succinct way to describe it. last week, boehner joined the no-nothings in the gop using ignorance as a defense when it comes to confronting an issue where 97% of the scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. here's boehner, the speaker, addressing reporters last thursday. listen, i'm not qualified to

debate the science of climate change. but i'm astute to understand that every proposal involves hurting our economy and killing american jobs. >> he's not alone in there. as politico reports, leading conservatives have a new talking point on climate science. they're not qualified to talk about it. that's what they're saying. u.s. congressman chris van hollins, a democrat from maryland. all i want to do is get one thing straight. is the democratic party committed to doing something about climate change? >> absolutely. >> is the republican committed not to doing anything? >> yes. >> is it fair to say this is a sheerly partisan issue? >> unfortunately, yes. republicans still have their head in the sand, even on the most basic fact of the existence of climate change. >> you're a politician, fast rising.

here's the question. why would they plead ignorance? is this to be able to say well, we're not completely stupid, but we're not steinst scientists, so therefore we're covered. we don't have to have a position. what's the strategist of being dumb? >> i think you heard some of the politicians like speaker boehner move from the fact to saying they deny the science to say oh, we're not a scientist. but i don't think the american public is going to put up with that. because as you said it's a know-nothing position. the reality is that people are hungry for serious solutions to serious problems. and when it comes to this, just like the affordable care act, they complained about the affordable care act then said they were going to have an alternative, then they do nothing. same thing here. >> here's the problem, inaction. the thing that drives most americans, certainly me, crazy. you don't get anything done. there's really not much difference taking the i know nothing, sergeant shultz thing to i don't believe in anything. glenn beck drives me crazy by saying there's no such thing as man-made climate change or saying i don't know if there is or not. it's the same position.

>> it is a sign of the power of the issue. it is more of a wedge issue. >> do you think they're buckling here? >> i think it shows that there's a majority, which we saw today in the abc news/washington post poll that there's a strong majority to do something around climate. but yet, they have a base. >> i know i'm old school in some ways, but i'm going to make a point here. if you want to see the differences between the two political parties, republican and democrat on this issue, look at the two party platforms. nobody ever does. but let's do it. in 2012, the democratic party platform says global climate change is one of the biggest threats of this generation. if you go back to 2008, the republican party platform had an entire section devoted to addressing climate change responsibly. but in their 20 12k plat fom, they're regressing, that section was simply deleted. only one sole preference and that's to mock the president.

>> they realize this was a problem in 2008. john mccain was a co-sponsor of legislation to actually address this issue. but what they've got now is a big current within their party, the tea party folks who just refuse to believe science. >> why? why? >> the put their head in the sands. they believe the conspiracy theories that are out there. you've got various industries that are been funding studies that make believe there's no climate change because it's in their economic interest to pretend that there isn't. and a lot of these folks fall for these conspiracy theorys. >> can i ask a religious question? if we're the stewards of the earth, responsible for the earth, leigh it no worse than you found it kind of thing, how can these religious people on the far right not care about the condition of this planet? >> i think they actually more and more evangelicals care about this issue. you saw the pope last week talk about climate change. and the moral imperative of addressing climate change. i actually think this is a business interest.

>> doechbt put the pope in the same category of the yahoos. >> i'm just saying the pope himself has spoken out on this issue. but i think what we're seeing is a lot of special interest money in the guise of the tea party. the koch brothers have a lot of -- >> let's talk about that. if you're in the oil and gas business, that's where you make your billions of dollars, you should get a tax writeoff for all the money you spend on politics because you're basically protecting your tax status and your nonregulatory regime. they're getting money out of -- every time they give a buck to a republican, they're basically guaranteeing themselves a better tax status, less regulation, and more money. they want to maintain their economic position. if you're in the oil and gas industry, you're going to fight to keep your taxpayer funded subsidies. you're going to fight to keep all the anti-regulatory efforts.

>> and your ability to pollute. >> they're trading the quality of life on this planet in perpetuity so their family has more money. they're selling the health of planet for their own economic good? yes or no? >> i think the koch brothers are actually making a return on investment here. they're spending a lot of money in these elections. >> they're hurting the planet's health so they can make more money? >> absolutely. >> maybe they diluded themselves into thinking -- >> don't play the i don't know game. >> maybe they diluded themselves but that's the bottom line. >> rick scott is the governor 06 florida. i'm not a scientist, location, location. people go to doctors all the time. we trust information about we assume somebody knows how to fly an airplane and we get on the plane.

>> the governor relies on information, especially in florida. they're especially in danger from climate change. the fact that he's saying this is a sign -- >> is the doctor practicing medicine based on 21st century facts or 19th century facts? >> creptly climbed aboard the old clown car on this issue. >> let me get this straight. you do not think that human activity, the production of co2 has caused warming to our plan snet. >> i do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it and i do not believe the laws they propose we pass will do anything about it. except it will destroy our economy. >> there you go. he's got the talking points. he is playing to the yahoo crowd.

he's saying all they care about, anything that hurts economic growth is evil. >> right. >> if it does. >> first, they have that wrong. we don't have to choose between economic growth and clean air. we can have clean air and actually economic growth by focusing more on innovation and technology. but what he's doing, thinking about 2016 and the republican primary is playing to the tea party faction right now. and saying, i'm in the know-nothing camp. you're my guy. >> do you think politicians should have to take lie detector tests? >> i think we have those pinnochio tests. >> i would love to see everybody come on this show with a little shot of sodium penathol. you don't have to take the shot. >> this is a sign of progress, though. he did so badly on that answer that they now have to say oh, i don't know what the science is because saying it's wrong doesn't cut muster anymore. >> so they're going to the sergeant shultz method, i know nothing.

that nasty senate primary. the winner in the straw poll, ted cruz. umbers, carpenters and even piano tuners were just as simple? thanks to angie's list, now it is. we've made hiring anyone from a handyman to a dog walker as simple as a few clicks. buy their services directly at angieslist.com no more calling around. no more hassles. start shopping from a list of top-rated providers today. angie's list is revolutionizing local service again. visit angieslist.com today.

the winner in the straw poll, ted cruz. he won over 30% of voters in that crowd.

they put the texas senator narrowly in front of ben carson. but he was well ahead of rand paul who came in just over 10%. mike huckabee and rick perry round out the top five with about 5% apiece. we'll be right back.

we're back. as we've been saying for some time now, it's been a rough year for the tea party. establishment republicans have rolled the big victories over tea party opponents in states like texas, north carolina, georgia and kentucky, but things could be different tomorrow night in mississippi. republicans there will choose between vulnerable six-term

incumbent thad cochrane and chris mcdaniel. it's the last chance to unseat a republican senator. it's the last chance to unseat a republican senator. democrats, could get their first legitimate shot to send one of their own to the senate in 32 years. the perception is that they're too far to the right. henry, i've always trusted your uncle, especially in back rooms

when it's not on camera to tell the exact brilliant political truth. i'm asking you to do it on camera. and to tell us how's this race look actually. how does this race actually look for tomorrow night. and if mcdaniel wins, the tea party guy beats the incumbent. the cochrane people, they will turn out. i think cochran is going to be okay, but to get to your second question, if mcdaniel pulled this off, he's got real baggage that i think makes it a 50-50 proposition for a general. but hate to let you down, thad is going to win this thing, chris. >> how does a white mississippian vote democrat after all these years.

by the way, it's not like governor where you can trust the person to be a manager. this is an ideological position, u.s. senator. why would a mississippian, white guy, conservative, vote for a democrat to vote for harry reid to be majority leader. why would they do that? >> well, the reason that thad cochran is going to beat mcdaniel, we have a piece, a talking card that talks about, shows mcdaniel and the radio -- these crazy things, derogatory things about blacks, women, mexicans. mcdaniel would be an embarrassment for the state. and mcdaniel has proven to be somebody you can't trust. he'll say anything to get elected, whereas thad cochran is somebody we know we can trust. particularly after katrina, he was able to deliver. and the people of mississippi understand that if republicans do take control of the senate, that senator cochran is going to

be chairman of the appropriations. >> you notice i asked you to give a strict analysis without opinion, you gave me pure opinion. and that's fine. i guess i could have expected that. now we have a straight reporter. let's take a look. >> democrats don't have a chance of winning in mississippi. >> it's republican. >> it's the reddest of the red states. he could become a christine o'donnell if he wins. he could be right there with senator cruz. >> is there a risk? we just heard from henry barbour. could it be the comments that he's made that they're run on the radio will haunt him once he's in? >> very much so. mcdabble has a lot of problems, a lot of liability. and this is still an active investigation in mississippi. >> let's talk about that thing. henry, tell me what you know about these four people arrested for taking pictures of the ailing and demented, i guess, she's suffering from dementia, mrs. cochran in the assistive living facility.

who are those four guys that took the rotten pictures? >> all i know about them is they're all for chris mcdaniel. they're obviously demented and came up with a despicable plan. how can it be a good idea to go into a nursing home -- >> what was their message? what were they trying to say by taking a picture of a poor woman in her later stages of life with dementia? >> they're trying to play into the rumor mill about senator cochran. people in mississippi just aren't interested in that. i think it blew up in their faces. as it should. and of course, the fellows have been charged with felony. so things have gotten kind of serious for them. it backfired on mcdaniel. and mcdaniel had some momentum. and he's stalled because of this. >> do you think he's part of it? >> i think that he -- when he got asked the morning of the arrest -- or the morning after the arrest, i think he knew about it and he said well, i wasn't fully briefed even though when he was first asked, he acted like he didn't know anything about the arrest. his campaign has made

conflicting comments about it that make them look like they knew something. >> any evidence that he had part in this? >> no, but these are his supporters. no evidence the campaign was directly involved. but this is going to haunt him now and in the future. >> they will openly say they're for mcdaniel? >> they're all his facebook page. they're friends, they're associates. >> i love when politics get screwed up by terrible events. i love it because history is unpredictable. and this is a watergate feel to it. anyway, thank you. we'll be right back after this. 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.

new mr. clean liquid muscle. that corporate trial by fire when every slacker gets his due. and yet, there's someone around the office who hasn't had a performance review in a while. someone whose poor performance is slowing down the entire organization. i'm looking at you phone company dsl. check your speed. see how fast your internet can be. switch now and add voice and tv for $34.90. comcast business built for business.

they don't know the connection between guns and gun violence. they don't know the difference between voter suppression and the problem of minorities. they don't know the exploitation of cheap loy boar and the flow of illegal immigration into this country. they don't know the connection between co2 emissions and climate change, like sergeant shultz in "hogan's heroes." it's the same on issues one after the other, i know nothing. i know nothing. how easy it must be to write the platform of the republican party heading into the next presidential election. just think of how few words they will need. just a series of dittos under the three words i know nothing. someday they will have to pay for this ignorance is bliss number, this belief that the safest position is to believe nothing.

nothing at all. and that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. after five years in captivity, sergeant bowe bergdahl is out of harm's way. >> he wasn't forgotten by his kin tru because the united states of america does not ever leave our men and women in uniform behind. >> bowe bergdahl of hailey, idaho, was captured in afghanistan in june of 2009. he was 23 years old. he appeared in a series of propaganda videos released by the taliban while he was in captivity, which showed his declining health over time and december e pratt desire to be released. >> please bring me home. please. bring me home.