and who else? >> reporter: so, i guess you have three complicated questions. >> reporter: you pointed out there are no american boots on the ground. >> i was. it's complicated but not illegitimate. why them? it's their country. again, the president is -- i think the president, again, in the interview we're all citing described it as a profound mistake to commit american combat boots to being on the ground in syria. this is not a fight that the united states can take on for them. the united states is willing to be supportive of these -- of the syrian opposition as they try to put in place a government that reflects the will of the syrian people. and we're going to continue to support them. >> reporter: their country -- three years later, 162,000 people are dead, millions of refugees all over the region. again, why not then? why didn't -- why -- why didn't this plan -- why wasn't it

aeffect waited back then? >> i would say a couple things about that. the united states has been engaged in an effort to support them. we have been for some time. for more than a year, at least. separately, the concern that was expressed by the administration at the time and has been -- it's something that's been oft repeated is a concern that we didn't want to provide assistance to every individual who said that they were fighting bashar al assad. had we done that without thoroughly vetting them and building the kind of relationship that's necessary to understand who we're providing weapons to, we would have inadvertently provided weapons to the very people we're now fighting in iraq. so, there was a question of who exactly was included in the syrian opposition and which of those elements were interested in putting in place a government that actually reflected the will and diversity of the syrian

people. and which of those were members of the opposition who were actually extremists who were hoping to use the power vacuum that's been created by this civil war in syria to try to carry out their own vision of an islamic caliphate in this region. so, the reason the administration was interested in carefully vetting the individuals who are part of the syrian opposition is because we wanted to make sure our assistance was landing in the hands of the people who were trying to create a government that reflected the will of the syrian people. not to create an islamic caliphate that was carrying out acts of violence throughout the region. so, this -- this challenge of vetting the opposition certainly contributed to the -- to the policy of this administration to ramp up our assistance to that

opposition over time. after we had established some relationships and had the opportunity to vet these individuals and get a better sense of what their intentions actually were. john? >> reporter: josh, jeff asked you a series of very direct questions. i didn't hear a direct answer. so, can you -- >> i'll try again. >> reporter: please help me with a yes or no. >> i'll try. >> reporter: does the president intend to ask congress for authorization to expand his campaign against isil? >> well, i think -- >> reporter: just a yes or no. >> the president was asked this direct question -- >> reporter: he didn't give a direct answer. seriously. i don't know what buy in. i covered congress for years. i don't know what you mean by congressional buy in. that would imply a vote on something, a vote on appropriations or congress resolution or some kind of a

vote. is that what you want from congress on this, a vote, yes or no? >> again, if you want to get insight into the president's current thinking about this, then i would refer you to the answer that he gave to chuck in the interview 48 hours ago. but the other thing i would point out, that's also a part of your question is, if the president decides to expand the operation and these are the kinds of questions that are best answered after the president has made some fundamental decisions about what he wants to do there. that, you know, if there is an expansion in the operation that takes place, what consequences are there for a whole range of things? for our diplomatic relationships? what kind of as answer are we going to seek from our partners? what kind of assistance would we seek from regional governments? what role does congress have? so, it's heart to -- hard to -- unless we're talking about a specific order from the president, it's hard to talk in very specific terms about what we want congress to do. as a general matter what i can say is that the president is interested in their buy in, is interested in a congressional

debate, and is interested in consulting closely with leaders in congress so that they feel bought into this process and they feel like the partners they actually are, as the elected representatives of the american people. >> reporter: remember, the president did make a decision on air strikes of syria under very different circumstances, previously in his decision at that point was that he needed congressional authorization or that he wanted congressional authorization. if he were to go in that direction again, and decide that some kind of an extended air campaign against isil targets in syria were necessary, safe to assume you would have the same view, that he would need congressional authorization? >> the situation from last year is a little different from the situation this year. the situation last year was related specifically to the issue of chemical weapons being used by assad regime against the syrian people. the situation right now is -- is related directly to the

protection of american citizens in the region. the president does believe that he has all of the authority necessary, as commander in chief of the united states, to order the kind of military action that's necessary to protect american citizens. >> including strikes in syria? >> again, if there is an expansion, if there is an expansion of the president's military orders or if there is an expansion of the scope of operations that the president's willing to consider, at the point the president's made that decision, we can start making decisions about what sort of congressional role or authorization is required, if any. >> reporter: give me a sense on the timeline for a decision on this. something the president's considering right now? is this something we should expect in the next day or two? or is this something over -- >> we will say -- when you say this -- >> reporter: the decision on whether or not to expand military operations. >> well, the president has been regularly consulting with his national security team for weeks now. and when they are having these meet lgz, they're talking about

our broader strategy for confronting the threat by isil. there are a range of developments we've discussed quite a few times here, our dipdi diplomacies with iraqis. they've made progress and we're hoping this week they'll make additional important progress in forming a cabinet. there are -- there's important work that's being done by the secretary of state. he's traveling to the region this week where he's going to be consulting with regional governments. i think the president was pretty powerful in explaining the role that these governments in the region have and the stake they have in resolving this conflict. the president highlighted that so often these sunni-dominated governments perceive shia-led governments as the principle threat to their ability to lead their country and to remade in power. it's the president's view, and i think that there's some justification for this based on

the facts on the ground, they face a greater threat from more extremist sunni elements that have demonstrated significant capacity to wreak havoc in nir region. there's diplomatic effort to engage the international community here. there is -- there are a number of intelligence efforts the president has already ordered. we've talked quite a bit about how the president at the beginning of this situation ordered an increase in intelligence assets to get a better sense of what sort of -- to get a better sense of what actually was happening on the ground and to better assess the capability of both isil but also iraqi security forces. but also, as you point out, there's the other element to the strategy, the use of military force. that is part of the strategy. but the reason i'm running through this long list here is to illustrate to you that there are -- this broad strategy the president has put in place to deal with this is something regularly discussed among his team. they're discussing every element of this strategy at every

meeting. >> in his speech wednesday -- first of all, a prime time address or daytime speech? >> we're still working through the logistics of the speech the president wants to give. we'll give you more details when we know. >> reporter: is it the purpose of the speech to announce a new phase in this military operation or to outline what he has already outlined in different venues in the interview over the weekend, the press conferences on his last trip, what his strategy is. these are the isil -- >> the speech isn't written so i don't want to get ahead of a speech that isn't written. >> reporter: is it to explain what he's doing or something new? >> i wouldn't rule out there might be something new in the speech. the principle goal is to make sure people understand what the clear stake is for the american people in our nation in this ongoing violence we're seeing in iraq and syria. he also wants to describe what sort of tools are at the disposal of the american government as they try to protect our interests and our people in the region.

and the president wants to have -- epts to try to lay that out clearly. does that mean the president will have something new to say in the speech? i'll wait until the speech is written before i guess where he's going to end up. major? >> reporter: you were asked a moment ago, as president decided to expand the air war in syria, you said the president will go wherever is necessary. that sounded like a very near confirmation [ inaudible ] >> no. if the president made a decision like this to expand military operations, you can expect the president would announce that decision. not just little old me. it's a statement of the president's view, in terms of what authority he has a commander in chief to confront these challenges. the president is determined to act where necessary to protect american citizens. both in the region, but here in the homeland. the president's demonstrated a willingness to do that on a number of occasions already.

and that principle -- that principle continues to apply in this situation as well. >> reporter: it's not a matter of whether, it's just a matter of timing? >> well, again, if and when the president has made a decision on long these lines, it will be something the president wants. >> reporter: wednesday's speech? >> no, the purpose of the president's speech on wednesday is broader than that. military action is one element of our strategy. the president has this integrated strategy that relies very heavily on america's forceful diplomatic myight and range of other as spets we have at our disposal. >> reporter: let's say for the sake of argument, i'm an american who watched president's press conference and watched the interview yesterday. after seeing wednesday's speech, will i say to myself, wow, there's like 70% brand new, or is it going to be like 91% -- >> that is a particularly creative way to ask that question. i think what i would say if -- i

would encourage that american citizen you're describing to tune into the speech and evaluate for themselves just how surprised they are by the president's speech. >> reporter: can you give us something better than that. >> i can't. it's early at this point. >> reporter: it's mostly what we've heard before. might be something new. i mean, is it to try to gather the american people's attention and say, in case you haven't heard, here's what i'm thinking about, here's the context, but this isn't a declarative speech on how i'm going to ratchet up this conflict to a higher military level and i need congress to approve it and here's how much it's going to cost and the timeline i've put together to envision achieving goals x, y and z. >> we're still a couple day as way from the speech so i'm not in a position to provide additional guidance to you with what the president may or may not say. we'll have the opportunity to try this sgen tomorrow and maybe i'll be a little more prepared. look, the president and his team

are working on the speech as we speak. i'm probably overcommitting myself now. but i will try to provide a little greater insight for you and your viewers about what the president intends to talk about on wednesday. >> reporter: i want to follow up on immigration for a second. i want to be clear. what the president decided on saturday is he wouldn't take any action until after the november election, right? >> what the president said -- >> reporter: is he going to revisit the entire question of taking executive action until after the election? because to my mind and many advocates who have been pushing for this, they're very different things. >> i appreciate you giving me the opportunity to clarify this, to the extent there is any ambiguity here. the president will take executive action within the confines of the law to fix those aspects of the broken immigration system that he's able to fix before the end of the year. and that is a decision he has made. that is something that will

occur. now, some of the static, you might say, in the media over the weekend, was related to the president's earlier commitment to acting before the end of the summer. what the president will -- has decided is he will act now before the end of the year. the president has not in any way altered his commitment or interest in taking executive action, again, within the confines of the law, to solve -- to act where congress hasn't. more specifically, to act where congressional republicans have blocked congressional action. and the president's commitment to acting on this before the end of the year has not changed. >> he said yesterday the reason for that is because he needs to explained to american people. why does he need until the end of the year to explain something? isn't it true that the dominant factor, if you want to call it static, was static from senate democrats saying, this is a -- maybe a good idea? maybe you think it's a good idea. it's terrible politics for us. we want you to wait until after

the election. the president clearly doesn't need nine weeks to explain this to the american people. if you wanted to explain it, he could explain it, just like he's going to try to explain the strategy on wednesday. seems to me the only rational explanation for this is intervening mid-term election and democrats do not want to take this on in the tooeft an already tough environment. >> the reason the president has made the decision to delay his announcement about executive actions he's going to take is specifically because he is concerned mostly about ensuring the solution that he offers is both sustainable and enduring. >> reporter: if it's an executive action, it is sustaining, by definition, until the end of his presidency. he doesn't have to worry about congress. that's the whole point. >> what the. the wants to do is ensure all the work that's been done over the last several years to build this powerful bipartisan coalition in support of immigration reform is sustained. and by injecting an executive

action in the midst of this hyperpartisan, hyperpolitical environment shortly before the midterms, that will have a negative impact on the broader public support and on the sustainability of immigration reform. so, the president's -- i guess the short answer to your question is, the president's willing to take a little political heat from the pundits, from some of the advocates in the hispanic community in particular, in order to ensure that the policy that he puts forward is one that can be sustained. and the fact is, we haven't seen a similar willingness from congressional republicans to take a little heat to do what's in the best interest of the country. in fact, we've seen congressional republicans do exactly the opposite. they've been in a situation where they don't want to take any political heat, even though they know that acting on bipartisan immigration reform would create jobs, it would expand economic growth, would reduce the deficit. that's why it's strongly supported by the faith community, by the law

enforcement community, by the business community, by the labor community. these are all reasons why comprehensive immigration reform should move forward. that's why it passed with bipartisan support in the senate. there's a small but vocal group among congressional republicans in the house of representatives who are blocking this kind of reform. that's the only reason we're having this question right now. >> reporter: he's not going to do what he said he was going to on the timeline he said he was going to do as an act of kourng? >> well, what the president has done -- look, major, it's not a surprise to anybody at the white house, certainly isn't a surprise to me, i won't speak for my colleagues. it's not a surprise to me there were some people in the newspaper over the weekend critical of the president's decision to -- to announce these executive actions before the end of the year as opposed to before the end of the summer. that criticism was not a surprise. that criticism was anticipated. but the president is willing to take on that criticism so that we can ensure that the executive

action that the president takes is sustained, it's enduring and we continue to have public support for it. look, for all of the disagreement there may be around this one issue, there should be no disputing the fact that injecting this issue into the current political environment would be really bad for the issue. there's no disagreement about whether or not -- well, maybe it would help some democrats. maybe it would hurt some others. maybe it would galvanize base democratic voters, maybe provoke republican candidates into doing things like shutting down the government to benefit democrats. there's a lot of views on what impact this can have on individual races but there's no arguing that injecting this issue into this sharply political polarized environment would be bad for the issue. and the president believes ultimately that that's the most important thing. that making progress on this issue is the most important

thing. no one in washington, d.c. has invested more in trying to get this done than president barack obama. and if that means the president's to take on a little more heat until we announce our decision, in order to make it more likely that these solutions will be enduring and sustained and successful, the president's happy to take on that heat in order to get that done. >> reporter: thank you. >> let's move around a little bit. justin? >> reporter: i want to follow up on that and argue with the idea that -- >> that's why we're here. >> reporter: injecting it into the current political climate is bad for the issue. i mean, we just went through a year ago saying time and again house republicans haven't moved on the issue. it seems legislatively dead in every possible way. so, the only "x" factor out here seems to be control the senate. i wonder if you can explain explicitly why an executive

action would make -- if it were to come this week, would be less enduring than one that happens five weeks from now, if it's not what i think we're all dancing around, which is that it helps senate democrats to retain control of the chamber? >> the reason that immigration reform over the last five years has made so much progress -- >> reporter: has it made progress? >> well, it passed senate with bipartisan support. every democrat in the house voted for it. we know we haven't tested the proposition but everybody in here -- let me know if you disagree, but i think know would stipulate this would also pass bipartisan support with bipartisan majority, the president would certainly sign it. that's evidence of significant progress. i mean, it's not ancient history to cite the experience of 2006, where you had democrats and republicans on both sides of the issue. reluctant to engage in a debate about it, let alone reluctant to

vote for it. so, so we have made a lot of progress over the last five years. the reason for that is two-fold. the first is, it's become clear what the facts are. the facts are that it would be good for job creation. it would be good for economic growth. it would reduce the deficit. so, the facts are clear about why congress should take action on this. the second thing is, a lot of difficult work was done to find common ground. that's difficult in this town. thanks to dutiful efforts of this administration, democrats and republicans in the senate, they brokered common sense and coupled a proposal that would do good for the country. meant neither side got everything they wanted but they were able to arrive at a piece of legislation that everybody acknowledges would be really good for the country. so, there is painstaking work that was put into striking that

compromise. what we have also seen in the context of these midterm elections is a pretty gross distortion about the facts of our immigration system. >> reporter: will that change after the election? >> what will change is we'll be past it. i don't think any -- think about it, justin, i don't think any republican candidates right now are contemplating a six-figure ad buy the third week in november. are they? if they are, i hope they'll spend their money that way, but they're not going to. so, the tone and heightened nature of the debate will just be different. will will still be republicans against common sense immigration reform? yes. i readily agree that will be the case. but will they be in less of a position to distort the facts about what that position actually is? yeah, i think they will. [ inaudible ] >> the reason the president

feels confident about -- well, i'll take that in two ways. the first is, we want to preserve the strong public support that currently exists for immigration reform. right? that we've worked hard in painstaking fashion to couple together this coalition of democrats and republicans in washington, d.c. and business leaders and labor leaders and faith leaders and leaders in the law enforcement community all across the country in support of this proposal. but buy injecting it into the highly charged political debate six or eight weeks before the midterm elections is to subject this issue to gross distortion and partisanship that could alter that balance. we don't want to do that. that means the president is willing to take on a little heat and be criticized by -- certainly by republicans but even by members of his own party in order to protect the issue. ultimately, that is the goal. we've said for quite some time, the president's goal is solving

problems. not just playing politics. >> reporter: just -- >> press secretary josh earnest taking sustained volley of questions. number one if president will go to congress for authorization to go into syria to pursue terrorist isis and if the president errored from walking away from executive action on immigration and why he did that before the midterms where politics is at play. peter alexander joins me now from the white house. quite a briefing. sustained volley of questioning. very persistent questioning from the white house press corps. let's start with the isis question. is there anything coming out of the white house now that gives you a sense of the answer to one of the questions that was in that briefing? whether there will be anything new in the statement that the president will make to the country on wednesday? >> reporter: well, i think jay made it clear it's unclear if

we'll hear anything clear tomorrow, to put it clearly, right? i spoke to senior administration officials and they're telling me the president wants to use this platform on wednesday to try to put this argument in the most spre comprehensive and clear terms he has so far. what we have not heard is whether or not the president will indicate his intentions to launch air strikes in syria. but today jay was very vague saying basically the president believes he has the authority to do whatever is necessary as concern to any threat that may be presented to american citizens or basically american personnel in that region or here in the united states. the senior administration official also said to me that were there to be air strikes in syria, the top priorities would include some of the locations where weapons are housed. they would include some of the training sites that exist in that country. and also the leadership. i took that to mean, clearly the drones that have been flying over syria in recent days and weeks have been gathering up the

intelligence in advance of the president's decision to be made. we just don't know whether, in fact, the president will communicate that very clearly to the american public on wednesday or whether or not he's still going to hold that out as basically a card as he says he can do whatever is necessary, wherever that would be. >> peter, just in talking to your sources, i think what's not clear, and maybe the reason that briefing went on so long, is the white house is saying they all -- the president already has the authority to go into syria, to conduct air strikes. then what is it that the president and the white house is seeking from congress? is it authorization? is it affirmation? what exactly does the president want from congress? >> reporter: you put it very clearly right there. that's what we're trying to figure out right now. it seems like what josh earnest was saying, if the president decides he wants to launch air strikes in syria, then he will decide if he believes he needs congressional authority in terms of some form of a vote. it was that idea of the phrase

buy in we heard the president use, josh earnest use, we're trying to get a better understanding of right now. beyond that, it's important to note the president is going to communicate to the two democratic and two republican leaders of the house and senate what he described as intensive consultations. but he'll be visiting with them to give them a better lay of the land about what he intends to announce on wednesday. even as josh said that, he acknowledged the speech is not yet written. >> they're writing it as we speak. peter alexander, thanks very much. during an interview on sunday with chuck todd, host of "meet the press," the president said there will be no american boots on the ground. but he used some familiar american wartime president-type language when he voeed to, quote, hunt down the terrorist group responsible for the beheading of two american journalists along with major conquests in iraq and syria. >> over the course of months we are going to be able to not just blunt the momentum of isil. we are going to systematically

degrade their can'ts, shrink the territory they control and ultimately we're going to defeat them. >> let me bring in dana milbank, political columnist for "the washington post." have you to help me square that circle. you have the bellicose language, the hunt them down language we're getting from the president. a long way from where he was before. today you have josh earnest hedging his bets about what it is the white house is trying to do to de grade isis. is it going into syria? if so, do they think congress has a role to play. is this confusing or are we not listening to the white house properly? >> it is confusing and the president needs to do a bit of a delicate dance here if he goes out and presents something very specific in terms of his plan. well, then, it can be criticized up on the hill. if it's not specific enough, you get the kind of criticism that he was getting a couple of weeks ago, that it sounded weak, that he -- he didn't quite mean what he said when he said we don't

have a strategy. but that did him a good bit of damage. what he needs to do on wednesday is sound tough, as he has been doing. he's been getting some plaudits from democrats and republicans alike on that. he has to thread the needle between laying out anything too specific there they can chew up on capitol hill. but also avoid the other extreme of just being vague, as he had been before. so, it is very difficult. >> you know what, if it's confusing to understand sort of what the white house's strategy is, the congressional confusing is even greater because you have certain members of congress, senator bill nelson, the latest victim of isis was from florida, so senator nelson potentially introducing legislation that would explicitly thoers going into syria. you have these different points of view from people saying, yes, we need to take specific action, including darrell issa getting involved in that. is there any cohesive, even majority coming out of congress as to what they want to see

done? >> joy, you have trouble getting a cohesive majority to say the pledge of allegiance or the opening prayer these days. no, of course there's not now. this president, like virtually every president the last 30 years, 40 years, december and republic -- democrat and republican, he will say he has the inherent constitutional ability to do that. there's a case for that. he can postpone the reckoning in congress. certainly, the president would like to have affirmation from congress with a vote. the first time in syria, when he dropped the ball in congress's court there, they couldn't do anything, couldn't agree on anything. then the united states looks weaker. he doesn't want to say, please authorize a specific conflict. even though they agree in principle, there's so much dithering and incompetence they can't agree. >> even when congress appears to be chickens running around in the dark, the arc of the country

always moves toward war in these situations. let's get a question about the second part of that press conference, which is the immigration. the decision that the white house made to delay executive action was supposed to be a healing move. it was supposed to bring down the temperature on capitol hill. but it seems like it's kind of done the opposite. >> it may have brought down the temperature on the republican side. they were ready to pounce and go after vulnerable senate democrats because of that. the problem is the president is now deepened the problem with his base, the immigration activists who have been demanding action. not just for months, but for years. it's been stalled and stalled. largely by republicans in congress. and i think the president made his situation a bit worse by saying he'll take action by the end of the summer. so he backed himself into a corner now. so, he may well be a short-term shrewd political move but at the

cost of goodwill among his supporters. >> dana milbank, thanks for hang around. we just learned baltimore ravens terminated ray rice's contract after new footage evolved in the domestic violence allegation. we'll have much more on that. today her doctor has her on a bayer aspirin regimen to help reduce the risk of another one. if you've had a heart attack be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. over 12,000 financial advisors. so, how are things? good, good. nearly $800 billion dollars in assets under care. let me just put this away. how did edward jones get so big? could you teach our kids that trick? by not acting that way. ok, last quarter...

it's how edward jones makes sense of investing. ♪ so ally bank really has no hidden fethat's right. accounts? it's just that i'm worried about you know "hidden things..." ok, why's that? no hidden fees, from the bank where no branches equals great rates.

let's go to that breaking news out of maryland. ravens just terminated ray rice's contract, in the wake of new calls for harsher punishment of the nfl star for beating up his then-fiancee back in february. a tweet from ravens official account moments ago reads, the ravens terminated ray rice's contract this afternoon. the termination comes after new surveillance video has been released by tmz sports. i want to warn you, it is disturbing. inside an atlantic city hotel elevator you see ray rice and fiancee involved in an altercation. rice then delivers a blow that

leaves her unconscious on the floor. he then drags her body into the hallway, picks up her shoe and gives her body a little kick with his foot. as "the new york times" points out rice was charged with felony assault in march, but after she declined to testify against his her, they were recommended for counseling. roger goodell succespended him two games. they just upped it to six game minimum suspension. in addition to calls for stronger punishment, today the nfl says, quote, the video was not made available to us and no one in our office had seen it today. dave zire, and jamel hill is co-host of "two numbers never lie" and i want to get everybody's reaction to the decision by the nfl to suspend ray rice. >> i think a lot of people right

now will probably rush to give the baltimore ravens credit as if they, you know, had any kind of moral high ground here. personally, like a lot of people, i find it very difficult to believe the nfl or the ravens knew the full extent of what happened. this is a league a couple years ago where wide receiver dez bryant of the dallas cowboys, an nfl gm asked him if his mother was a prostitute. they make it their policy as a league to know everything about the background of players, especially when when it involves criminal incidents. i don't understand how the nfl nor the ravens could be in the dark for this. until i find out more on that end, i am absolutely not in the camp of giving the reiavens cret as if they deserve praise for doing something they should have done in the first place. >> goldie taylor, how do they think she wound up unconscious? it begs the question, whether or not, first of all, if the police were involved?

they were. there was an investigation. you have to believe there was a way for the nfl to discover there was something more to the video than there was that they saw before. is it a good enough sdus for the nfl to say, hey, we just learned about this video on tmz? >> i agree with jemele. i believe they did know. in fact, a spokesperson for the nfl pushed the lie that somehow this woman assaulted ray rice before she was hit. they said there were mitigating circumstances. now that tape has come out, a tape i'm certain they believed never would come out, now that it's come out, they suspended ray rice. this should have been done a long time ago. he should have been up for a one-year suspension or banned from the nfl from jump. but i don't believe, given the reporting i've seen today, that this is the first that the nfl or the ravens have seen of this tape, given how they characterized it back when this happened. >> dave, we had a real debate in our morning meeting today about whether or not even to show that clip. i know that you have strong feelings against really having that tape out there.

isn't it the case that had that not come out, the nfl would have continued this fiction that they did all they could do in terms of punishing ray rice? >> well, then shame on us, goldie -- i'm sorry, jemele and joy. shame on us we need to actually see the videotape of her getting knocked unconscious to realize violence against women took place in that elevator. shame on ravens for treating violence against women like an exercise in public relations. shame on the nfl for being so untrustworthy, whether we're talking about concussions, players' health, now women, when no one believes them when they say they haven't seen this tape before. shame on us for not actually thinking about janay rice at the moment and what it's doing to her that the videotape was released and now re-released. we were yu set about the celebrities having their accounts hacked and clicking on

the nude photos. with this video out there, how does that serve janay rice? >> that's a valid point. we showed it one time. we don't to want run it over and over again. i think that is a good point. you know, goldie, i want to play another video i think was just as disturbing in a lot of ways. and it was the video of janay and ray rice together, a press conference they had together on may 23rd. i think this is equally disturbing in a lot of ways. >> i don't call myself a failure. failure is not getting knocked down and not getting up. >> i regret the role i played in the incident that night. i can say i'm happy that we continued to work through it together and we are continuing to strengthen our relationship and our marriage. >> i mean, we didn't have the whole tape. there's a part in the middle where he says, unbelievably, he says failure is not getting knocked down. it's about getting back up. the look on her face, the look on her face.

then she apologizes like she was at fault. the basic dynamic of the violence that to me was apparent in that clip. how does the nfl make any sort of excuse for not being able to see it on her face how much of a victim she was? >> you know, joy, i won't litigate their relationship. i'm not in it. but i've been there. i've been the apologist, the person that covered for him. he said he was okay, he was my man and he loved me. so, i've been there. what i will say is that this nfl commissioner questioned that victim in the presence of her attacker. that defies every moral code -- >> yes. >> -- around domestic violence that has ever been written. so, that is malfeasance in and of itself. if anybody ought to be suspended tonight f anybody ought to have a sit down for a game or two, it ought to be roger goodell. >> is there any reason why this young woman should have been made to attend a press conference at which she then apologized for her part in an incident in which she was beaten?

>> that's why i think a lot of people, and rightfully so, myself included, are very sickened by the baltimore ravens. they put on this sham of a press conference, and goldie is right. anybody with a basic knowledge or understanding of domestic violence knows that you would never put a victim, an abused woman, in that position. it brins forth to what i think will be maybe a problem going forward with these strengthened domestic violence policies. the policy as it stands is basically putting the victim in the position where they are burdened with justice on the person who is abusing them. and that's a very big problem because that's what happened with hadder. what is she supposed to say? she has a child with this man. she's probably worried about the financial ramifications of it. of course she's going to take roger goodell she hopes he doesn't take away her husband's livelihood. unfortunately, that's a very real situation that the nfl has to understand about what they're doing to victims by putting them in this awkward position with their attackers.

>> dave, i can see you want to get in. >> just that i agree with jemele so much. you're putting these women in the position of actually undermining their own economic security. i mean, there's no privacy. there's no confidentiality. all there is punishment. that's the nfl responding with -- i'm upset about this, because it's the same mass cue lynnist reaction to domestic violence causes it in the first place. big daddy roger goodell will come in with his big foot and make everything okay. big bully gets little bully. that's not how you stop domestic violence. you need to have a discussion about how to mend women, how to get women to get out if they want out and the power to navigate their own relationship. the statistics are horrifying. 25% of women who are killed by their partner are killed after they leave their partner. 65% of abusive situations take place after they leave. these situations are incredibly difficult for these women to negotiate. the idea the nfl would make it harder for these women to

negotiate these situations is really disturbing. >> yeah, it's pretty unbelievable. stay with us. important conversation. we're going to continue right after the break. if i can impart one lesson to a new business owner, it would be one thing i've learned is my philosophy is real simple american express open forum is an on-line community, that helps our members connect and share ideas to make smart business decisions. if you mess up, fess up. be your partners best partner. we built it for our members, but it's open for everyone. there's not one way to do something. no details too small. american express open forum.

this is what membership is. this is what membership does. ugh. heartburn. did someone say burn? try alka seltzer reliefchews. they work just as fast and taste better than tums smoothies assorted fruit. mmm. amazing. yeah, i get that a lot. alka seltzer heartburn reliefchews. enjoy the relief. to roll out a perfectly flaky crust that's made from scratch. or mix vegetables with all white meat chicken and homemade gravy. but marie callender's does. just sit down and savor. marie callender's. it's time to savor.

we know we're not the center of your life, but we'll do our best to help you connect to what is. keeps them awake at night.roblem and columbia forest products had a tough one. they make plywood. and the panels look perfect when they leave the factory. but a company they sell to is demanding refunds. refunds for defects that only appear when the finish is applied. it's hurting their profits, so i offered to help. at ge capital, we do a whole lot more than just the financing. we bring expertise from across ge. so i call in our access ge engineers, and together with columbia, we work backwards. from the cabinet factory, to the finishing plant, to the place they peel the logs. and sure enough, we find the source and help replace the machine. problem solved. defects go away, and everybody sleeps better. if you just need a loan, just call a bank. but at ge capital, we're builders.

what we know, can help you grow. zirin, sports editor at the nation, goldie and jemele hill. roger goodell, they put out a tweet in which they said roger goodell announced based on new video evidence that became available today, he indefinitely suspended ray rice. new video evidence, is it disingenuous? i'll start with you, jemele, to take this action and say it's based on new evidence when this is essentially part two of the same evidence they had before? >> i think it is disingenuous, as has been pointed out, i think our legal analyst here at espn said it best, what do they think happened in that elevator that would lead to her being

unconscious? clearly -- and for him to take a plea bargain, that's an admitance of violence. i think for roger goodell, he's admitted he's wrong in print and maybe -- i don't know, maybe he didn't see this video and there's been conflicting reports. our own chris mortenson reported few months ago some in the nfl brass had seen the video. if they had, i'm wondering, how did this not get to the commissioner, a man who prides himself knowing the ins and outs of this league. whether it was new england patriots with spygate, michael vick, he has made it his business to know when the nfl brand, when that is being compromised, to know everything he knows about that situation. so, even if the police for some reason did not provide the nfl with that video, we all know, there are more video cameras in casinos than virtually anywhere else. so, why wouldn't you as the commissioner, if you didn't have this video, ask for it anyway?

>> dave, let's take a step back. we do have an overall question of the culture. and whether it's college players, high school players accused of something horrible but still put on the field, you know, almost sort of race horse style. the most important thing is they are allowed to play. what about this larger picture of the nfl as a place where you can actually be adjudicated in a case of domestic violence, have the police come to your door, be arrested and not have an immediate suspension, longer than two games, at least until the legalities play out? >> how much power -- take a step back. how much power are people comfortable with the nfl and roger goodell with having over their players' lives? how does that actually, once again, let's go back to janay rice. how does is that help the women in question? how does it help them navigate domestic violence to know to come forward could mean a six-game suspension, lifetime ban, the hammer coming down on them and their lives? these are really important questions.

i'll tell you, the nfl's slow -- jemele heard me say this is before. always seem to be, hate the player, don't hate the game. now all the criticism gets to be focused on ray rice. he's the person who's put out there. no discussion about the history of domestic violence in the nfl and how the nfl has not dealt with it in the past. there's no discussion about, i have to say this name, javon belcher who took his own life in 2012 after taking the life of his own child. he took his life in front of his own coach. i said they should cancel games that sunday because of the gravity of what took place. roger goodell did nothing. plausible deniability. that's the most disturbing part of this, it's only an issue because it was caught on tape. >> goldie, now the thing is you do have this is couple now cut off essentially from the league and from whatever assistance might have been there in terms of medical, in terms of social services help, in terms of mental health counseling. and is it the answer, then, to

simply, as dave said, hate the player, don't hate the game? so cut loose the player. cut loose the family. because this woman is still in the situation. now essentially, not that we're going to presume what will happen, but now she's in the middle of the reason why her husband is no longer playing football. >> well, two things first, joy. you know, to dave's point, let's call her name. her name was casey perkins. javon belcher killed casey perkins. she has a name. let's back up and talk about what our responsibility is. who is the d.a. who did not see a clear case of aggravated assault inside of an elevator and charge this player with it? charge this human being with that? why was he eligible for diversionary program in the first place? so, yes, there is a responsibility by the nfl not to put, you know, their rove new before the lives of human being but there's also a responsibility of the district attorney in this case to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. while someone is clearly engaged

in aggravated assault is in a diversionary program is beyond me. >> i want to bring in mike florio from nbcsports.com. inopportune time for the nfl to get this aired because they're not getting any kudos for this move. talk about this affect on the game and on the league. >> the league should be basking in the glow of what was a very successful opening sunday of the regular season. we all knew inevitably, eventually, the video of what happened in that elevator would emerge. we all assumed it would come from tmz. and it did. it shocks me in hindsight that neither the ravens nor the nfl insisted on seeing that video, assuming the reports are true and the statements are true, that nobody saw the video. it's beyond me why though didn't see the video. all they had to do is say to ray rice, if you want us to believe the story, get your lawyer to get the video and give it to us. that apparently didn't happen. that's amazing.

we all knew at some point the video would come out. >> how much is down to the due process afforded to players because obviously they have a union and negotiate a contract that does lay out some of the way this goes. >> i get the impression the issue of the video never came up. nobody bothered to think, we can't get the video from the prosecutor but we can get the video from the player. we can get the video through the player's lawyer. how cue not want to see that video before making a decision as to what the appropriate punishment is for ray rice? i think a lot of what we're seeing today is a reaction possibly because ray rice and his wife weren't honest with the team, the league, about what happened in that elevator. either way, once you see that video, you have a far different impression and belief of what should happen than what folks had previously. i'd say especially the league, a two-game suspension never would have happened had they seen this video. >> this story rocketing all around the world. people seeing the video, the reaction, the fact he's suspended. price secretary josh earnest commented on this very

situation. >> baltimore ravens announced they terminated the contract of ray rice. i realize you did not know that. but probably have seen or heard about this pretty dramatic, horrific video of him beating up his wife. the president has spoken out on this issue a lot. vice president i think today is at an event about the passage of the violence against women act. what kind of comment could the white house offer about this situation? >> well, i haven't seen the news because of what you just said. let me say it this way. this administration and this president do believe strongly that the scourage of violence against women is something that needs to be aggresses ively battled. i don't want to make comments on this individual person and individual nfl team. have you seen the president and vice president make very forceful comments about how important it is for men in particular to step up and step

forward and make clear that violence against women is something that is -- is not and cannot be tolerated. and that the most important thing, or one of the most important things we can do to try to end the scourge of violence against women is for men to band together. to send a very clear signal it is unacceptable for -- >> i want to get a final comment from each of you. mike florio, even the white house, getting comments from that level. >> just shows you how this has resonated through the sports world and beyond. it's been unanimous since the nfl announced the two-game suspension. the nfl gets things wrong from time to time. no one believed the two-game suspension was sufficient based on what we knew then. now the question is, what's sufficient punishment for ray rice now what we know now. the team has spoken strongly and the league has spoken strongly by suspending ray rice

indefinitely. >> jemele hill, a final comment, anything else that should be done by the league at this point? >> i think at this point there's going to be some serious questions that roger goodell must answer to. i think this is a lasting mark -- negative mark, obviously, on his legacy as a commissioner. and i think it was just a week ago a lot of people were giving him credit for the strength in domestic violence policies. now it seems like his credibility is completely shot. and i would also say i think this has shed an unfortunate light about what domestic violence victims go through, as goldie mentioned. if you can't get any justice in law enforcement, i mean, what else are we left with here? >> indeed. i wish we had more time. dave zirin, goldie taylor, jemele hill, very important discussion. that wraps things up for "the reid report." visit us online. "the cycle" is next. vo: this is the summer.

the summer of this. the summer that summers from here on will be compared to. where memories will be forged into the sand. and then hung on a wall for years to come. get out there, with over 50,000 hotels at $150 dollars or less. expedia. find yours.

you know.... there's a more enjoyable way to get your fiber. try phillips fiber good gummies. they're delicious and an excellent source of fiber to help support regularity. mmmm. these are good! the tasty side of fiber. from phillips where the reward was that what if tnew car smelledit card and the freedom of the open road? a card that gave you that "i'm 16 and just got my first car" feeling. presenting the buypower card from capital one. redeem earnings toward part or even all of a new chevrolet, buick, gmc or cadillac - with no limits. so every time you use it, you're not just shopping for goods. you're shopping for something great. learn more at buypowercard.com it's monday. a brand new start. your chance to rise and shine. with centurylink as your trusted technology partner,

you can do just that. with our visionary cloud infrastructure, global broadband network and custom communications solutions, your business is more reliable - secure - agile. and with responsive, dedicated support, we help you shine every day of the week. centurylink your link to what's next.

"the cycle" begins with breaks news in the sports world. baltimore ravens suspended star running back ray rice indefinitely. the team just terminate the his contract, sending out this tweet. the flurry of activity coming hours after new surveillance video was released by tmz sports showing the star knocking out his then-fiancee back in february. here is the video. it's disturbing. inside an atlantic city video hotel, you see rice and thinks then-fiancee. rice delivers a blow that leaves her unconscious on the floor of the elevator. he then drags her body into the hallway. picks up her shoe and gives her body a little kick with his foot. here he is dragging her out of the elevator. rice was charged with felony assault. after his now-wife janay palmer refused to testify against her husband, charges were reduce on youed. nfl commissioner roger goodell suspended him for just two games. just last month