that is all in for this evening. the rachel maddow show starts right now, good evening, rachel. >> good evening, chris, thanks my friend. thank you at home for joining us this hour. in the year 1560, what other show starts that way? in the year 1560 in scotland, the parliament decided that scott land needed a new religion, they needed their own religion, a specifically scottish version of christianity. the parliament of scotland picked six guys who they tasked with the job of writing basically a declaration of scottish religious independence. writing the tenets for the new church. the guys they assigned to do it were john knox, john winram, john douglas and john roe. they picked six guys all of whom were named john.

six of them. very awkward. not as awkward as mary, queen of scotts not agreeing to what they agreed about queens had a way of not staying queen forever and ever. once mary queen of scots was gone. the confession of faith, written by the six guys all flamed john, it was enacted into law. as one of the founding documents of the new church of scotland, that is how scott land in the 15000s got its own national denomination of the protestant faith. be hold the power of sclism. it's an excellent word, really. we word the word schism and think of it in religious matters. but schisms are not just for religious matters and they're

not just ancient bloody history. the signs that a really interesting sclism might be breaking out right now in america surfaced last night in the great state of mississippi, in a really really grumpy ballroom when all of a sudden the republican party started getting talked about in the past tense. >> the party i joined when i was 13 years old, was the party of a man, a former actor from the state of california, named ronald reagan. that's the party i joined. that's the party i've always been a part of. it was a party of principle at one point. a party of courage at one point. it was reagan that said, we will be a party of bold colors, not pastels. and yet there are millions of people that feel like strangers in their own party.

so much for bold colors. so much for principle. i guess they can take some consolation in the fact that they did something tonight. by once again compromising, once again reaching across the aisle. once again abandoning the conservative movement. i would like to know which part of that strategy today our republican friends endorse. >> our republican friends. not us, because these other people, these republicans. well, they used to be a good party at one point, he kept saying, at one point. but now tea party senate candidate chris mcdaniel last night talking about the republican party in the past

tense, as he did not concede that he lost the mississippi senate runoff to thad cochran. mr. mcdaniel went on to say there were irregularities in the election yesterday. he did not admit he lost by saying, we'll see you soon. this afternoon, he put out this statement to cure anyone of the misconception that the republican party and the tea party was going to be making up any time soon. mcdaniel called for scrutiny of the election's irregularities and for a thorough examination of the core principles of the republican party the conservative movement is alive in mississippi. it's no wonder so many conservatives don't feel welcome in the republican party. if our party and our conservative movement are to co exist it's paramount that we ensure the sanctity of our own process is upheld.

what's all a process of contesting the election result, if our conservative movement and party are to co exist. the conservative movement is alive, but the republican party needs its principles reexamined. maybe they can co exist, maybe they can't co exist. especially since they're not the same thing, not any more. schism. and maybe chris mcdan daal is just mad. it's not just him. this idea that the republican party is no longer a welcoming place for conservatives and conservatives are opposed to it, not part of it, that is kind of the tune or the tone of a lot of the reaction on the political right to what happened in that election last night. and it started on the national conservative media, even before

the final results were in last night. >> you went as far earlier this week and late last week to suggest that if the republican party doesn't get their act together, you would consider moving to a third party. explain? >> well, if republicans are going to act like democrats, what's the use in getting all gun ho about getting more republicans in there. we're going to be a fundamentally transformed country unless those who know what they're doing, and aren't going along just to get along with those in power, being today the democrats, that does no good. so, yeah, if republicans aren't going to stand strong on the plates and platform, it does no good to get all enthused about them any more. >> those republicans who are so terrible. and i should say that governor palin has made noises in the past about leaving the republican party.

a couple weeks ago, she said it was the issue of immigration, that she said was just about driving me to renounce my republican ties. last year on the fox news channel she also said she would consider joining something called the freedom party. >> the name of that party, the freedom party. and if the gop continues to back away from the blanks and our platform, from the principles that built this party of lincoln and reagan, then, yeah, more and more of us are going to start saying, what's wrong with being independent? i think there will be a lot of us who start saying, gop if you abandon us, what -- we have nowhere else to go, except to become more independent. >> a declaration of tea party independents, conservative independents, they will leave the republican party and form, i don't know, maybe the freedom party. something else, some third entity. this has been sort of a hobbiest, empty threat rattling

around on the political right now and again for the past few years, but it's spiking right now. after what just happened in mississippi, this is what they are talking about on the right. and these are the terms they're talking about it in. mark levin said this on twitter, d.c. republican party may have finally angered conservatives beyond repair over at red state, the editor eric erickson there says i continue to oppose a third party, but he says, the mississippi race does crystallize for me the desires of many to start a third party. he says, the problem for those who call themselves republicans is that it is harder and harder to say exactly what a republican is these days. i'm just not sure what the republican party really stands for any more. this becomes a longer term problem for the republican party, its core activists hate its leadership more and more. it's a system that cannot perpetuate itself. grassroots activists feel further and further removed from the republican party.

we may just see an irreparable split. and even worse, he says, if party leaders and party based voters cannot reconcile themselves to a common candidate in 2016, god help us. conservative newspaper, the washington times today circulated an e-mail blast that went out overnight from the head of a group called the tea party nation. what is the point of supporting them. we don't have to. the republican establishment thinks they fought back an insurrection, and now we will fall in line in november and support a rhino, a republican in name only. never. it's not just these national voices. in mississippi specifically, tea party leaders there telling

reporters that the republican party is now badly hurt by this fight, the chairman of the tea party tells politico, it makes you want to quit being involved. i never believed a third party would work, maybe that's the only way to get rid of the corruption of washington. schism. it's not just for breakaway forms of protestants any more. it's been an amazing and illuminating thing to watch the establishment versus tea party fight over the past few years, but today, the side that sees itself as anti-establishment sort of appears to be giving up on the republican party. maybe they will leave it, maybe they will start their own. >> washington, d.c., is not a place of representative government any more. it is a place of aristocracy, that's all it is. george washington warned us, this is not a tea party, this is george washington, and if you would like to go down and throw george washington under the bus,

go ahead. but i will never do it. george washington warned us, the two party system will be the death of us. >> now, is anybody actually throwing george washington under the bus? but if so, right wing talk radio hosts will refuse to go along with that quietly. it's amazing. the national reaction is in this race against thad cochran. it's been for tea party supporters, to start talking about leaving the republican party. it's been the reaction on the right today. in the near term, mississippi tea partiers are definitely talking about splitting off from the republican party. they clearly feel that the divorce has already happened. in the very near term, they're talking about mounting a legal challenge against the results of last night's republican senate runoff. that may be next, there may be a

lawsuit here. one of the conservative websites today, breitbart they ran this long article today, with tons of mississippi specific advice about how exactly chris mcdaniel could mount a legal challenge to the results of this race. which specific counties he should start his challenge in. how he can request ballot boxes at precincts statewide and inspect the contexts and what the legal precedents are of voting irregularities and how we can get the election forced out. the election would have to be redone. it's a long detailed road map, all this really really specific advice, about how exactly chris mcdaniel should legally challenge the results of last night's election. the mississippi politics expert source for all of that advice today is the chairman of the democratic party in mississippi. who, of course, would love for

the tea party and the republicans to keep this fight going. here's advice on how to do it, do you need help bringing your lawsuit, we could help. do you need lawyers. >> democrats and liberals take a lot of joy in watching conservatives and republicans destroy each other. in political terms, this is the fun stuff, if your opponent is in the streets setting himself on fire, the most important thing for you to do is nothing that might put out the fire. but in this case, with the tactics that the republicans used to beat the tea party last night, and with the fact that it worked and the tea party got beat, and that has caused national gnashing of teeth and upset, not just in that state, but really across the country and in a very outloud way on the right, is the tea party at a point where they are shifting for wanting to take over the republican party to instead wanting to oppose it? schism. joining us now is steve

kornacki. where is the inflexion point between let's take over this lousy party and let's get out of this lousy party. did last night get us any closer to that one? >> it's not heading in the direction of a third party. i think it's a significant moment last night, i think this is part of the long story, the sort of tea party republican split, it began in 2009. i think it's going to play out a lot longer than 2014, 2016. it's going to take a while to think out. it's going to be a symbolic rallying cry you're going to hear from tea party conservatives going-forward, they're going to call back to what happened in mississippi in 2014. the establishment, do you know how much they don't like us, how little they trust us? so much, so badly that they

teamed up with, they got democrats to come into our party, our primary to beat us, that's how little they trust us. it reminds me that the historical comparison. i don't mean to be kind of grandiose with this, the historical comparison is 1952. there was a pivotal moment in the rise for the modern conservative movement. dwight eisenhower against bob taft from ohio, bob taft already thought he had the votes, and the conservatives thought they had the votes. they called it the fair play of procedure at the convention, and they got the taft delegates out. that's how eisenhower won the election and how he became president. over the next decade, calling back to the betrayal of 1952, that's the conservative movement that barry goldwater rode in 1964, the goldwater movement had its roots in 1952, there were times between 1952 and 1964 where you had people around

barry goldwater, the answers to the third party. there were people talking about starting a third party. that talk was very much there. ultimately when it was, what happened in 1952 was grist for the rise of the goldwater movement in 1964. i think what happened in mississippi is grist for the tea party movement. >> it's a galvanizing thing, it's a different metaphor, having a bloody shirt to waive at that point could be something that would move your movement to a place -- >> never forget what they did to us here. >> i wanted to quote the democratic party -- the democratic chairman from mississippi in his very detailed and specific advice. i think it's funny, the democrats obviously watt to give this disingenuous advice for how much they feel for chris mcdaniel. he's also being an astute observer about how this works. in 30 years, he said this

will -- what has happened last night in many is miss will be the sort of thing that every political operative in mississippi, he was old enough to have been alive when this happened, will define themselves on whether they were a cochran man or a mcdaniel man. he's essentially saying this will change the party forever. the question, though, is, if he's right, and you can extrapolate from this. what is the thing that happens in the tea party, in the conservative movement that wouldn't have happened without this betrayal. >> i'm looking at the near term future, tennessee and kansas. these are the two live senate primaries. they hadn't gotten much traction yet. here's the thing, what the cochran forces pulled off in mississippi last night, is something that could only happen in mississippi, open primary, there's no party registration in mississippi. anybody can come in and vote, huge, statistically the largest proportionally african-american population of any state in the country. all of these voters who are on

the sidelines, the cochran people are able to tap into, galvanize, get them to vote. where else in the country can a republican who's under attack from the tea party, have that at his disposal to go out and beat the tea party. take a close primary in another state, and have the grassroots all upset. look what they just did to us in mississippi. they think they pulled a fast one on us. we're going to show them here. i think -- i really think we can say, yeah, the establishment won, they really pulled a fast one on the tea party last night. i think the joke could be on the establishment here, the tea party is going to be super fired up about this, what they did in mississippi, theyen cat do anywhere else. >> if they are able to do it in the same way they're able to do it against eric cantor in virginia, that takes some of the wind out of their sails, in terms of splitting from the republican party. they think they can't take it over, it's when they feel like they're fighting battles against the establishment and losing, they declare war on the establishment.

>> they lose by 5,000 votes. it's not by 50 points, they can win these things. >> i can tell you, you were up all night clicking refresh on the returns like this like i was. thanks, steve. thanks for being here. lots more to come tonight, about very important news about what you cannot buy at 7-eleven. if you find you can buy it there, you should not do so. it's very important for your health. an exclusive on one army lawyer who's been forced into making a decision that you probably will not believe or hear about anywhere else. stay with us. we're moving our company to new york state. the numbers are impressive. over 400,000 new private sector jobs... making new york state number two in the nation in new private sector job creation... with 10 regional development strategies to fit your business needs. and now it's even better because they've introduced startup new york... with the state creating dozens of tax-free zones

where businesses pay no taxes for ten years. become the next business to discover the new new york. [ male announcer ] see if your business qualifies. 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.

in april on the cbs sunday morning news show that's called face the nation, the archbishop of new york had the following advice for the ladies of america who might be thinking about or worrying about their contraception needs. the archbishop suggested that any american ladies worried about access to quality contraception, they should consider their local convenience store right between the blue slurpee machine and the oily spinning machine turning the hot dogs all day and night. you may look there for prescription birth control pills or get your iud implanted in your uterus. consider the options at 7-eleven.

>> is the ability to buy contraceptives that are now widely available. my lord, all you have to do is walk into a 7-eleven or any shop on any street in america and have access to them. is that right to access those and have them paid for? is that such a towering good that it would suffocate the rights of conscience? i don't think so. but i hope the supreme court agrees. >> cardinal timothy dolan explaining on cbs that 7-eleven is really all we need to take care of any contraception in this country. walk into any store in america, they'll put in your iud for you, they'll just ask nicely, also wash your hands. the case the archbishop was talking about is still pending. police can't search your cell phone or your personal digital devices without getting a war an. that was a big deal.

they also ruled on a big deal technology case on aereo. it will have big impacts on the tv stations. there's going to be a whole bunch of really big deal rulings that are still due to come out that we've been waiting and expecting every day now. we're still expecting rulings on recess appointments. we're expecting rulings on buffer zones, protest free areas outside of abortion clinics. there's a big ruling to come down on union rights. there's also this big anti-birth control case, the one that cardinal dolan was so excited about. that case has been championed by conservative activists and elected republicans, and it's basically about whether or not your boss can overlaw the rule about health insurance.

or conservably about anything in this country. whether your boss can overrule the law on the basis of his or her own religious beliefs. the owners of hobby lobby brought this lawsuit because they are against contraception. and they want to basically impose that belief on their employees. by blocking their employees health insurance plans for covering stuff like birth control pills or iuds. new york's archbishop stating that he thought that discussion could be solved at 7-eleven. that's sort of an expression of faith in convenience stores. demonstrates once again why we need to leave decisions about birth control between a woman and her doctor not a boss at an arts and crafts store. this is going to be a big and potentially really far reaching case.

we're expecting a ruling on this one tomorrow maybe monday is the last day of the term. once it happens, it will be fascinating to see how the political world reacts. i'm no expert, i would guess the ruling is on the side of the arts and crafts stores who don't want their employees use birth control. will democrats take political action in congress to try to bring that insurance regulation back if the supremes get rid of it. will they try to save access to contraception through some sort of action in congress. if so, are republicans going to fight against that? >> the beltway never talks about this. opposition to not just abortion but to birth control is now a mainstream elected republican position. a republican candidate being

opposed to birth control is a senate race issue for this fall in arkansas, in montana, in colorado, in north carolina. in michigan right now, michigan is such a mess. in michigan right now, they are towing around this terrifying publicity stunt. a school bus crushed by a piece of falling concrete from a decrepid bridge. the legislature just left town and didn't finish their session. they apparently think the state is too broke to do anything about some of the most falling down terrible roads and freeways and dangerous bridges in the country. but amid that the detroit news this week caught that the state can't really be all that broke, since they did find a way to set aside $800,000 for a no bid contract.

$800,000 of taxpayer money to go to an activist group that promotes childbirth in michigan, they promote childbirth not just by opposing abortion, but by opposing access to birth control pills. michigan republicans are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on taxpayer money on an activist group that opposes the use of birth control pills, because that's what michigan needs. not just in the deep south, on the far fringes of conservative politics. in totally mainstream republican politics now, being against contraception is a mainstream position. and against that astonishing backdrop, the big anti-contraception hobby lobby case is due to come down from the supreme court in 3, 2, 1.

is the ability to buy contraceptives that are now widely available, my lord, all have you to do is walk into a 7-eleven or any shop on any street in america, and have access to them. is that right to access those and to have them paid for? is that such a towering good that it would suffocate the rights of conscience? i don't think so. but i hope the supreme court agrees. >> new york's archbishop, cardinal timothy dolan explaining his thoughts on the practical consequences of the hobby lobby supreme court case that we are awaiting from the

supreme court right now. at a time when opposition to birth control is becoming mainstream national republican politics. if anyone at a 7-eleven or at a shop on any street in america offers you birth control, offers to put in your iud or something, maybe don't call the archbishop for advice. joining us now is dalia leftwick. she helps us understand the supreme court. dalia, thanks for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> i will not say taquitos one more time in this show tonight. there are plenty of theorys out there, people predicting how this court's going to decide the case. what's your expert view on it? what do you think is going to happen? >> i feel like, if you had a dollar for every time i said this, rachel. all eyes are on anthony kennedy. i think it was very clear after oral argument that the women on

the court were wringing their hands saying, really, contraception? we're not arguing about abortion, we're arguing this? didn't we settle this in the '60s. i think the conservative wing of the court didn't have much to say about the idea this was just about contraception. they felt like the green family had an inherent conscience right that was being violated. it really comes down to what justice kennedy thinks. on the one hand he was the one who said oh, my god, if the green family can be forced to provide contraception, can they be forced to provide abortion? at the same time he turned around and said, what about the fact that these women are third parties, what about their religious faith? don't they have a right here too? he seemed to be aware, i think at both extremes that this could, as you said be a very broad ruling with huge ripple effects, but you know, in light of how he decided the legislative prayer case earlier

this year, the town of grief case with huge regard for the faith of believers and sort of subordinating the objections of others, it's tempting to say he may vote with the conservative wing this time. >> if that happens. and i realize the way that happens could happen in lots of different ways. the ruling could be narrowly construed. talking about the contraception part of it. i know that some democrats in congress today were making noise that they would try to legislatively respond in some way, specifically on that issue of women having access to contraception through their health insurance plans. do you see a way that there could be a legislative fix? or constructive legislative response in that kind of a rule something. >> i have heard an awful lot of folks say, look, ultimately this is about a statutory case. this season the a constitutional tweak, this is a statutory

tweak, that does, i think invite congress to come back in and respond to the supreme court. i think what you said initially is really right, though, the breadth of this will drive what happens after. there's a decent possibility that the court tries to go a little bit small on this, and limit it do closely held family corporations like the green family. in which case i think that triggers other remedies, it's so much going to depend on how the court gets where they're going before we can really talk about how we could repair it. >> am i also jumping the gun to ask whether or not this might -- this could conceivably have ramifications for overall, the affordable care act. if this is about regulation that says health insurance has to cover contraception without a co pay, and if that's struck down, are we possibly looking at a way of sort of undoing the

applicability, the enforceability of obama care? >> well, we're certainly not -- i mean, the contraception mandate itself is not in question. that wasn't part of the appeal. but you're certainly right to say, if we're going to give every religious business owner a way to end run the mandate, certainly, i think it opens the flood gates for anyone to challenge not just this provision of obama care, but really, you know, any neutral law that they don't like, so i think that the concern all along has been, not just, you know, the implications for the contraception mandate, but the implications for all sorts of people who say, i thought i was protected by basic civil rights law, if my boss is a jehovah's witness or my boss believes in sharia law, is he or she going to be able to sort of impose those religious views in ways that don't just violate my sense of who i am in this country but violate other legal mandates

and protections i thought i had? i think that's the real concern here, and i think in fairness the court was aware of that when this case was argued, that it really doesn't just unsettle the narrow question of the contraception mandate, i think it unsettles an awful lot of presumptions we have about the law. >> and the extent of -- the extent to which we can apply our own concerns and restrictions and fears to people around us without the law interfering with that. fascinating stuff. i don't know when this is going to happen, but i hope you'll come back and help us understand it when it does. thanks. >> thank you. >> appreciate it. tonight we have some exclusive material coming up, u.s. military officer effectively being forces out of the service. taking what appears to be an ethical stand. it's a really strange story.

we're moving our company to new york state. the numbers are impressive. over 400,000 new private sector jobs... making new york state number two in the nation in new private sector job creation... with 10 regional development strategies to fit your business needs. and now it's even better because they've introduced startup new york... with the state creating dozens of tax-free zones where businesses pay no taxes for ten years. become the next business to discover the new new york. [ male announcer ] see if your business qualifies.

in the summer of 2012, the republican party was feeling good about their presidential prospects, they really thought

they had a chance of making president obama a one-term president, and they made a really aggressive choice that year. they picked florida. tampa, florida. yes, tampa is best known as the death metal capital of america. tampa is also a major city in a major swing state. a pure tossup state with the diverse voting population, where any edge of any county could make the difference in the whole national election. here was a chance for a week long 3-d campaign ad in the middle of a critical background. offense, not playing it safe. they rolled out the biggest republican names in the country, railed against president obama, put up that weird glitchy debt clock thing nobody understood. it was all going well enough, until they made a miscalculation. >> what do you want me to tell romney? i can't tell him that, to do that to himself. you're absolutely crazy.

>> in the summer of 2012, the republican party was playing offense and then they fumbled into an empty chair, and they not only lost florida, they specifically lost tampa. and, of course, they lost a national election, and right now they're taking a second swing at it. what do you think they've taken as their lessons learned for this time around? that story is next. we don't typically buy new, but with truecar...

the price was so great that we couldn't turn it down. it saved us so much money i was kind of looking around like... this is too good to be true. it was that good. saving you time and money is what we're all about. so when you're ready to buy a car, visit truecar.

during the 2012 election, republicans chose to hold their

convention in tampa, florida. that november republicans lost florida, they even lost tampa. in 2008 the republican convention was held in st. paul, minnesota. that november, republicans lost minnesota, in 2004, republicans held their convention in new york, new york. that november, republicans lost new york. in 2000, republicans held their convention in philadelphia, pennsylvania. that november, the republicans lost pennsylvania. are you sensing a pattern here yet? in 1996, republicans held their convention in san diego, california. that november, they obviously lost california. the last time a republican candidate for president actually won the state in which republicans held their convention was 1992. republicans held their convention that year in houston, texas, and president george h.w. bush won texas, then lost the election.

republicans have the opposite of a personal record. they have shot the moon. when it comes to winning in the place they hold their convention. every four years they do the same thing. you would think they might be -- but they have reportedly been considering for their next convention, for their next go around. if they're looking to break the streak, republicans keep losing colorado, las vegas should be out because they've been losing nevada. ohio should be out, because even though i always think that they think they're going to win ohio, they have been losing ohio. if the republicans want to break the streak and have their big party somewhere they can win for once, the only places on their list they should have been considering are dallas, texas, and kansas city. kansas and missouri, of course, both have a kansas city. they've actually joined forces to consider kansas city. that could make sense.

missouri and kansas are reliably red states and kansas is koch brothers territory now, so they could pick kansas city. that might work. what's the matter with kansas city? why didn't they pick there? i don't know, but they didn't. they picked dallas, or cleveland. cleveland is still in the mix for them. so whether or not republicans are going to break their streak in 2016, their generation long losing streak, losing where they have their big party. in 2016, it's either dallas or it's going to be cleveland, which makes no sense for them. that would help them keep their streak going. that's the announcement they made today, dallas, makes sense, or cleveland, makes no sense. but they're going to make their final decision by the end of the summer.

say you are a lawyer, and you are representing a client who is accused of murder, but

it's not just any old murder case, it's a capital murder case. that means that your client, if he's convicted, could be facing the death penalty. let's say midway through your work on this criminal case, your boss decides to pull you off. your boss says we have something else for you to work on, you can no longer work on the defense of your client. what do you do? what is your ethical responsibility to your client? do you follow orders and walk away from the work you've done in this defense? thus increasing the chances that your client will die because of you leaving? do you leave because your boss asks you to or do you tell your boss no and do what you can to follow the case through? now, imagine that your client is this guy. this, of course, is khalid sheikh muhammad, mastermind of 9/11. that predicament i just described is what his u.s. military lawyer is facing. jayson wright has been assigned to represent khalid sheikh muhammad.

in the u.s. justice system, every defendant has the right for a defense. he's represented khalid sheikh muhammad for three years now, but he's been told that he can no longer serve on the defense. he needs to drop out of the case and return home to the u.s. to attend a year-long graduate course that's required of all army jag lawyers at his level. what would you do? that was the question facing major wright. watch this. >> under army regulation, when you're given orders to attend a course of instruction, as an officer, you have 30 days to decide what to do. you can decide to accept the orders and proceed as directed,

or you can decide to reject the orders. congress asked me to do a job. they asked me to represent guantanamo bay detainees. i was appointed by the chief defense counsel to represent mr. muhammad in this capital case, to represent and see it to its conclusion. so i could either voluntarily attend the graduate course or resign. >> producer shauna thomas spoke with major wright, who has been facing this almost impossible dilemma. the u.s. has a very rich and proud legal history of providing an honest defense to even the most unsavory defendants. major wright has been providing that defense, but now the u.s. government, which is not only his employer but the side that he's up against in this case, they are trying to pull him off the case midstream. >> whenever someone takes an obligation to represent a client, especially in a capital

case, you have to see it through. when congress envisioned, they said you have a duty to do and that's to zealously defend your client. when you take that obligation on, you don't take it on without seeing it to its conclusion. having been on the case for several years, i have a legal and ethical duty to see it through. this is irrespective of the 9/11 case. this is a scenario that law students would face in a professional responsibility class. what do you do when faced with a conflict of interest, do i choose to forego the interest of my client or do i choose to fulfill the interest of another

organization or entity? >> the army informed major wright this year that he needed to leave his client and go back to the states, he asked the army for a deferral for a year to continue in this case. this time they said no. so now he faces this dilemma, accept the orders or quit. what would you do if it was your choice? >> march 26 of 2014, i submitted my resignation paperwork. one of the reasons i chose to resign was that it allowed me to continue to represent my capitally charged client a little bit longer. so if i also were to accept the orders and go to the graduate course, effectively i would be off of the case in june, due to all the administrative requirements associated with moving and going to the course.

whereas by resigning, i'm able to stay in the military for an additional six months. as of 26 august, 2014, i'm not only off of mr. muhammad's defense team, but i'm also kicked out of the army. >> major jason wright quit. he resigned from the u.s. army in order to stay on this case just to you a few months longer, believing that was his ethical responsibility. he decided to quit and leave the army after nearly a decade of service. his last appearance in court as a defense attorney for muhammad was last week. he will work on the case for another few weeks and another military attorney will take his place. this is just a remarkable story. not only for what it says about the legal challenges of trying to prosecute these prisoners we've been holding in some cases for more than a decade now, in a tribunal system we invented just for this purpose, but also for what it says about the dilemmas that we are putting the lawyers through.

the lawyers we have tasked as a country representing these defendants. amazing story and amazing sacrifice. good thursday morning, everybody. right now on first look, win, lose or draw. excitement builds for today's big battle in brazil as the u.s. tries to stay alive at the world cup. a flood emergency in the upper midwest with rivers at the breaking point. land mark ruling. a federal appeals court says states cannot ban same sexy marriage. >> serena williams get up and close with wimbledon fans and facts of life reunion ends in an epic selfie. thanks for joining us. i'm betty nguyen. the big day is here. that means productivity in many offices might not be so hot today. the u.s. men's soccer team will have a chance to