chris hayes is up next. battle of the planet. let's play "hardball." ♪ good evening. ite cris matt thew in washington. depends on your view of science, today is a landmark date in world history. human history. if you believe that man is hurting the future of life on this planet by the burning of fossil fuels, affecting climate and thereof the human, today is a day to remember in prize. president obama announced a historic deal with china to cap emissions by the largest carbon polluter in the world. if you're the new chairman of the senate environment committee, all of this is just a hoax, just like evolution and others advances. more than that, it's an affront to god, an abomination of scripture.

here is james inhofe on the impossibility of climb change, as long as the earth remains, there will be seed time, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night. in other words, no matter the destructiveness cannot hurt of health of the planet. he cannot affect the environment, this a man who claims to represent oklahoma, the dust bowling of the 1930s when fields turned to dust so people couldn't see and had to flee to california. droughts alone, by the way, didn't cause that. it was man's abuse of the land over-grazing and exhausting the toptoil now china is pledging to cap the carbon emissions by 2030, in exchange, the u.s., which is currently the second biggest carbon polluter, to slash emissions by up to 28% "new york times" described the deal as remarkable. associated press called it groundbreaking. on the republican planet of the

apes, however, the deal is being shaud a charade. just hours after announced mitch mcconnell called it a failure and partisan attack. >> the problem is the president continues to send signals that he has no intention of moving toward the middle. i was particularly distressed about the deal apparently he's reached with the chinese on his current trip, which as i read the agreement, requires the chinese to do nothing at all for 16 years while these carbon emission regulations are creating havoc in my state and other states around the country. >> well, today's deal is just the beginning of the president's war on the republican flat-earth society of climate change denitious. politico reports that the obama administration is set to roll out a series of measures that rivals any president's environmental actions of the past quarter century. david corn is with motor jones, and john bray bender is the

republican strategist, dubbed the political guru. claimant change says oftentimes put on the back burner, but this is a pretty big deal. cutting a deal with china reminds me of the old -- with the soviet union, where we did get them to stop building weapons. >> this is a big deal. it's a conceptual breakthrough. up to now china has been reluctant to pledge in details any cutback, and they'll grow and cap and come down, because we've already polluted our way to prosperity. they're still in the middle of doing so. the nations of the world -- >> what's the republican plan? >> there's no plan. they don't believe in science. you've got to this in your great intro, chris. the big point, are we going to have policies that are based on science and national throat. are we just going to read the bible and say everything will

work out? that seems to be a pretty clear divide. that's really what's happening here, so when mitch mcdonnell gets out there, he doesn't have a plan. he has nothing to say about the science and the policy, says the partisan attacks, because dealing with climate change means dealing with coal. >> why does jim inhofe -- i know he's from oklahoma. why is he using the bible? why is he doing that? >> that's a jim inhofe question, but evidently -- >> must when i period in the ears with chinese he must have been more flexible in negotiating climate change. the 2k50e8 he just negotiated as senator mcconnell pointed out, was ridiculous. you give the china ease 16 years -- >> how many years would you have given them? >> that's not the point. >> no, it is the point. >> the chinese made a commitment to try -- >> no, no, no.

>> and india wasn't even at the table. >> if this goes how you're going to go about it, it's never going to happen. china has hundreds of thousands living in abject poverty, using coal-fired stoves, so it's not unfair for china to say we have to build or way out prosperity, and we'll start tapering off, because you have already done that. >> there's a lot of americans who are worried about their jobs. if you're a coal miner in west virginia, are you sitting there and saying today because of what obama did, your family's income would put food on the table is more -- i realize if you're a small business owner? no. i don't care as much about china as i do the united states. >> being in the arms business justify wars? no, if you say a guy makes a living doing stuff, then we have to keep doing. >> >> what i'm saying is we have to look at american perspective.

>> tobacco farmers are a good example here. we came to the point where we realized that tobacco was killing people, and doing something about it, education efforts would hurt those farmers. >> and coal and shale are making us the energy ijd. >> but also killing the planet. >> let's look at mitch mcconnell. he is very much a guy against this whole discussion we're having, which includes a new batch of elected senators. let's watch mcconnell in action here. >> i'm not a scientist. i am interested in protecting kentucky's economy. >> i don't know that science behind climate change. i can't say one way or another. what is the direct impact. i do believe in protecting our environment, but without the job killing regulations that are coming out of the epa. >> i'm not qualified to debate the science over climate change, but i am astute enough to understand that every proposal

that has come out of the this administration to deal with climate change involves hurting our economy and killing american jobs. >> you know, let's get something basic here. u.s. senators and congress people, i used to be one of they, i had a lot of staff people, they do executive summaries, they can give you a reading list -- they do have free time to read and they're legislating on issues like the environment. why do they keep saying "i don't know? >> because the arrogance of the obama as mrgs is they have come to a conclusion that all the scientists have said one thing when there's -- 98 -- >> it's not 97%. >> there's very prominent scientists who say -- there was a agreed ad during the reagan years, if there's a bear in the woods, what do we do? a predominance says there's a bear in the woods and it's going to chew up the planet. you can always find two or three

who deny anything, but the predominant thought is this is happening, it's real, but are you saying we should just ignore that? what would you do differently? >> i'm saying the arrogance to not even let leaders know what he's doing -- >> why down in louisiana now, mary landrieu is coming out saying we need the xl pipeline. >> because she represents the oil industry. that's why. let's look. here are republicans with admission denies science is your ticket. >> we have, you know, real data about 100 years, so somebody tell me what 100 years data is. my guess is the conclusions that you make from that are not conclusive. >> i go not believe that human activity is causing they dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it.

>> it's beautifully concocted scheme. i know the earth will cool and warm. it's been on a warming trend, so let's take advantage of that and say we need the government to coup in and regulate user life some more. >> it's not among scientists that it's disproo portion natalie manmade. i get this idea, the sanctimonious idea that somehow science has decided all of this, so therefore you can't have a view. >> do you believe that climate change is realn. >> i'm always 2rub8d by a theory that fits every perfect situation. i remember the '70s, we were told there was global cooling. >> you have to -- ted cruz was born in december of 1970. he was between the ages of 0 and 9 back when he remembered all this debate about the climate cooling. i don't remember it, but he remembered it when he was like 2. what is he talking about? >> everything we heard about in that super cut is disproven and

has no basis, rand paul is wrong with about 100 years the data. >> what is it about -- >> the question is -- why is the rep party the party of oil and gas? >> i don't know why. i don't i did why it's so antiscience and the why the that, well, i have a different view, you're sage mondayius if i say my -- is not legitimate as that based on the science. the talking points seem to be effective, but at the same time they're irrational and just -- >> let me -- is the republican party -- wasn't the party of teddy roosevelt and conservation, that was teddy roosevelt. your party doesn't believe in conservation. >> the american people agree with you. symptom styer -- and where are the people marching to the polls saying, my gosh, we have to

stop -- >> every time we talk climate change, you say it won't sill, the people aren't interested. why don't you talk about science and whether it's true or not? >> i'm happy to talk about science. and the truth of the matter is science doesn't agree on this issue. >> you can't say that. there's an overwhelming consensus on this point. >> let's talk about inhome. he's head of the science committee coming in, the biggest climate denier is going to run as i said the senate's committee a the environment. here is senator jim inhome in his own words. >> the notion that manmade gases, co2 called global warm egg is probably the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the american people. this 97% doesn't mean anything. it's a bure -- if you regulate carbon, you regulate life. >> god is still up there, and the arrogance of people who think that we, human beings,

would be able to change what he is doing in the climate is to me outrageous. >> you might remember it was 2003 when i made the statement that the idea that manmade gases, co2 are causing catastrophic global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated. and i was hated at that time, but now people realize i was right. >> the fact that all of this is happening is due to manmade gases, i believe it's the greatest hoch ever perpetrated on the american people. >> what do you make of him using genesis? >> that's up to him. ite not going to play that game here, but i think we had to understand this comes down to three different points on climate. number one, are the numbers too small a time period to know if it's accurate or an aberration? number two, is it man caused? and there's disagreement. >> no, there is not. >> and three, is there a net effect? >> we have science with 30, 40,

50 years and they have answered these questions, john, if you care. george h.w. bush went to rio, because he accepted the science. >> this is why -- >> where do you put -- where do you think this is as far as an issue that american people care about. >> i'm saying should the policy and the politicians who advocate policy -- put aside public opinion for now? it's important, but not always the most important thing. run santorum would agree with that. he waubt always in line -- >> think why the republican party's position -- they're not going to let anybody like you or me moderate a debate. they don't want these basic questions to be asked, because they're embarrassing. >> they don't want to be debating evolution. >> i think they're happy to debate it. they don't want 20 debates on a minute thing lycra ception, but

all of a sudden you start debating it. >> who brought up the issue of contradeposition last election? who brought it up? >> the first time it ever came up was in a debate by a moderator. >> we have a tape and we'll play it tomorrow night. wesh as rick santorum said -- we have tape here, and i'm not sarcastic. is it fair so say we can use tape here? thank you. both for the defense. coming up democrats have just won -- they got back two seats from the nra. lastee the gun lobby recalled two democrats in the middle of their terms and ran through two. last tuesday it was pushback time for the democrats and the gun control people. and aaron sorkin, the man behind "a few good men" "the west wing" is here to talk about "the newsroom." this is "hardball", the place for politics. she inspires you.

no question about that. but your erectile dysfunction - that could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or any allergic reactions like rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a free 30-tablet trial.

it's been more than a week from election night. we still have results to report. nbc news has projected dan sullivan as the apparent winner in the alaska senate race. is holding a slight lead over mark begich, who has yet to concede. we'll be right back.

at shell, we believe the world needs a broader mix of energies,

which is why we are supplying natural gas, to generate cleaner electricity, that has around 50% fewer co2 emissions than coal. and why with our partner in brazil, we are producing a biofuel made from renewable sugarcane to fuel cars. let's broaden the world's energy mix, let's go. welcome back to "hardball." last month we were reminded once again of the s. by a class made arm -- this past friday you the shooter's cousin died as a result of wounds sustained in that massacre. the battle over guns continues, of course. they were subject to recall

election and ousted in a revolt for the support of the new state's gun control laws. johns morse joined us on "hardball" the day after he was recalled. but if you lived the hood just a skosh, they only got 9100 votes turned out. they actually didn't do a good jock of this at all. >> morse was right. colorado voters defeated the pro-gun republicans, and handily e -- in washington state, a ballot measure to increase december won 5% to 41%. pretty strong lead there. it's not an accident that both have mail-in ballots, which allow far greater voting action. it's a two-step process. they perhaps the will of the people nationally support expended background checks will

finally be reflected in the law. senator, thank you for joining us. you get the two-step process, you don't make it complications, no voter suppression, and then you let them vote on key issues themselves so they could be lobbied. it's hard to lobby a citizen, easy to lobby a legislator. your thoughts? >> well, there are millions spent lobbying those -- in colorado we have the easiest way to change a state's constitution. we have ballot initiatives on every two years. sometimes seriously 16 or 18 individual issues. millions of dollars spent with television ads, they obviously boil those things down, some of this aren't actually very accurate as to what goes on with that particular issue.

>> were the issues accurate on guns? this is in washington state, they a greater vote for background. >> i'm not as bimly familiar with what goes on in washington, but it does seem easy to say should we require folks little background checks, 80%, 85%, of the people as you suggested agree with that. >> why is there a differential between what people want and what their representatives agree to? what interrupts that? the people they vote for get cooperated by the gun owners, the gun manufacturers in many cases? >> it's incredibly frustrating obviously they're using it -- if you do take a common sense stand.

we didn't do anything that pronoun in colorado, but if you take that common-sense approach, we'll recall you. what we did was background checks, limiting -- all of that save lives. that's worth doing, in my view, every legislator across the country ought to stand up and do is it, but those that oppose us, just like the 9100 people against me, they managed to actually oust me because the folks on the other side are not as passionate about, hey, we need to stop killing people. i don't glow somebody who has died, it's not that big a deal. believe me when something you know dies, it is a huge deal. >> hard to beat. the issue is 594, increasing background checks -- to really complicated social problems, but

they have totally punted on this one, completely avoided responsibility. in the absent of their action, we decided to stay action themselves. ron reagan, thank you, your thoughts about how to get citizens back in the world of gun safety. . bass nobody wants any checks on this. anybody who wants to have a gun to have one in their hands, that's the only justification for avoiding a background check. >> the leadership of the nra feels that way, but the nra doesn't even represent their membership accurately. 70% of members would like universal background checks. in your system isn't universal, it's essentially worthless. you know you can go across the street and avoid a background check, it makes no sense to have a background check at the official gun store at all. this is a perfect example in washington state of how state

governments and states are ahead of washington, d.c., and the people in the states are ahead of their own government. the government here in washington, the state government in washington here twice in the last two years failed to pass a universal background check. the people insisted putting it on the ballot. it passes with 60% of the vote. the nra is a paper tiger at this point, chris. they've been floating along on a big cloud of political cravenness for years, but the people, even nra members, don't agree with nair leadership. >> let me get back to the senator. it seems to me that one of the arguments of the gun people is we're regular folk out there, we represent the people, but yet had you let the people vote, the regular people out there are regular people, they're not gun nuts, and the reg hear people say i don't mind having a shotgun, i don't mind them using it for all kinds of hunting, practice,s self-protection, but

you know, we ought to have a check on whether crazy people or criminals get a gun or not. that's only common sense. we make sure people get on airports are who they claim to be. can anybody explain why anyone would be against it as a principle? >> no, except the second amendment means you can't have any restrictions, which we know, the supreme court even in the heller decision, which allowed some more gun rights than really the constitution in my view, even it says, of course, government can regulate guns and restrict them and keep them out of the hands of dangerous people, but it really is an ideology, because you're exactly right, and everything that we did. we did five separate things in colorado. every one of them had majority support with the electorate in the state or the citizenry in the state. background checks by 85%, with you they didn't like it. magazine limitation by over 50%, but they didn't like it.

so they're saying we represent peep and this is what they think. no. it's who some people think, but they show up and they vote every single time religiously, and the rest of us who believe differently sit out or don't cast a ballot on a particular issue. >> i understand. senator, you live up in washington state. is it leading the way or an odd liberal state -- >> no, i think it is leading the way 770% nra members wants universal background checks i think tells you something. i can answer your question, by the way about the ideology. you know why these pun don't want -- they're peddling the paranoid delusion that university background checks will create a registry of gunsened our fascist government will come an configures indicate all those weapons.

that is the paranoid conspiracy fans sill they are peddling to insecure males who see guns as a vital part of their knead my, and they don't want to take it away. >> maybe they're afraid something will collect that vital part of their knead my with the gun. who knows. thank you, buddy. thank you, ron reagan and beautifully enlightened state of washington state. thank you, senator morris. up next, screenwriter and legend aaron sorkin is coming here to play "hardball." this is "hardball", the place for politics.

mmm, progressive insurance here. ever since we launched snapshot, my life has been positively cray-cray. what's snapshot, you ask? only a revolutionary tool that can save you big-time. just plug it in, and the better you drive, the more cash you'll stash. switching to progressive can already save ye $500. snapshot could save ye even more. meat maiden! bringeth to me thine spiciest wings of buffalo.

welcome back, a key story in "the newsroom" this year is a stolen government. journalists and lawyers debate whether or not to run the story for the tv show. let's watch.

>> two lawyers in the room say no. >> two journalists say yes. >> there are three journalists. >> did i count that one? >> if you think being an ass is going to be -- i can out-a ass anyone. >> you make that poor girl work on a saturday. >> she's a recent graduate. i'm completing her education. what she can learn from me she can't learn in books. get me a -- >> here it is, what's a journalist to do when they're confronted with the illegality and a need to make news? >> i don't know. you tell me. i just like the conflict. >> you always say that. >> well, i don't try to answer these questions. i throw them out there and let the arguments happen someplace later. >> let's talk about the thing you do deal with regularly in this show "newsroom."

there was a great scene last week when you thought they put on a fabulous show, and they ended up in fourth place. i alternates say -- you do the show of your life, and it might get a great rating. you do a term show, and you realize it hear it always get listen, i'm a capitalist, but we know there are some places where market forces don't work. so what do you do? >> we did climate change. he's a conservative and set nobody cares. we did it anyway, because it's damned important. >> because they decided for whatever good reasons we're

going to protect the planet. i think it's important. if nothing cares, isn't it the job of journalists to get people to care? >> well said. >> if you said the world is coming to an end because of climate change, that will get people to care. >> but first the kardashians. [ laughter ] the sale of the chance is on the plot. let's watch. the buyer is -- >> no wife, no kids s. >> give me a wifi accelerator. >> can i ask some questions. do they try to -- yes. >> offer no. >> what about selling another difference? tax consequences, we were the right price -- >> and it's a trophy sale.

would you not condemn the man until after he's said hello. perhaps in spite of his enormous accomplishments, perhaps he's still a decent guy? >> yeah, whose ideas are worth listening to. >> yeah. >> wait, what? >> this is so close to home in d.c., we have channel 7 here, my wife was the anchor there, and they got bought by the conservative guy. he's already putting his point of view. this is whats happening in the business. >> better we tackle that in that scene was a young actor named thomas matthews who hails from one of the most prominent families. >> what you do find influence being peddles by owners? >> yeah, i have found that when i researched the show. i want to say about the show,

it's never been about my telling people -- my telling the pros how they should be doing it. it's more a rho mant sized idealized group of people, a workplace drama, just like "the west wing" or like "sports night" was who are on if conviction on theic question trying to do the news well in face of the challenges you're bringing up. >> "i liked west wing" i've got to tell you, the good secret that nobody seems to believe is everybody who works in this business wants to get the truth out. they really do. >> i have found that. i've gotten -- from doing this show, i've gotten to meet a lot of journalists, people who are in front of the camera, behind the camera, out in the field, and everybody wants to get the truth out. everybody wants to do the important stories, and everybody

feels like there's another force out there that won't let me somehow. >> anyway, this election we just had had some drama, but it wasn't -- it was clear to a lot of people that democrats were going to lose a lot of seats. it wasn't a stunner. here i was back in february looking at what was going to happen. >> to the democrats, this election a rosy scenario is to lose five senate seats. they could lose ten. >> so it looks like they only lost eight as of tonight. >> but the drama of election night, there wasn't a lot of interest in it. every new television so whether it's "hat many president" "the newsroom" of course "veep" what happened to make politics sexy? >> gee, i don't know. it used to be that politics was taboo on television, that you

absolutely couldn't do a political show, you couldn't set a show in washington, you couldn't say the words democrat or republican. "the west wing" was supposed to last about five minutes about of it got canceled. through some kind of miracle we stayed on the air for seven years. and i love all the washington shows that are on now. i'm a big fan the "veep" and "house of cards." i don't know, we xhanged our mind. >> it's not as bad as "house of cards." >> i know. >> people don't put people in cars and turn on the gases pipe. >> they don't push them in front of the trains? >> i don'tening so. not even when nobody is looking. aaron sorkin, good luck with the next project. thank you for having me action a consultant for this project. it was an honor. >> and a thrill for us. coming up. make room for the republican clown car. including joni the castrator.

you're watching "hardball." the conference call.

the ultimate arena for business. hour after hour of diving deep, touching base, and putting ducks in rows. the only problem with conference calls: eventually they have to end. unless you have the comcast business voiceedge mobile app. it lets you switch seamlessly from your desk phone to your mobile with no interruptions. i've never felt so alive. get the future of phone and the phones are free. comcast business. built for business. comcast business. but parallel parking isn't one you do a lof them.ings great. you're either too far from the curb. or too close to other cars... it's just a matter of time until you rip some guy's bumper off. so, here are your choices: take the bus. or get liberty mutual insurance. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. see car insurance in a whole new light. call

liberty mutual insurance. welcome back to "hardball." time for our roundtibl, eugene robinson with "the washington post."

"time" magazine's washington corte jay newton small who has been everywhere in the world. the gop's right-wing clown car was full of faces with like troublemaker ted cruz. sarah palin, and michele bachmann or birthers like donald trump. iowa's steve king and texas' louis gopper. goemer. gopper. and here she is is. >> i have a beautiful smith and wesson nine millimeter and it goes with me virtually everywhere, but i do believe in the right to carry, and i believe in the right to defend myself and my family, whether it's from an intruder or whether it's from a government should they decide that my rights are no longer important.

>> so, yes, absolutely, and -- and i do think that, yes, he should pay for -- whether that's removal from office, whether that's impeachment, but as a u.s. senator, absolutely. we have to push that issue. >> as david gregory used to say, let's unpack that. i love that phrase. saying basically i have a gun, she'll have to go through a metal detector on capitol hill, not just for intruders in her home, wherever she goes, she has to protect herself from the government. the government. so she's in the government now, and somebody in the wrong bravrge of goism says something nasty to her -- it's serious business. what a pile of stuff she brings in with her. >> certainly the most colorful -- or one of the most

colorful senators we had for a while, though senator cruz was colorful where the get-go. it will see how she trying to moderate these tones, because this is a much more -- even when she entered the general election, even when she got into the general election she tried very hard. when i interviewed her to say no, no, no i don't want the president to be impeached. i don't really carry my gun, i really am a moderate. we'll see. >> i they they do damage even when they don't shoot people, when they go around saying the president of the united states isn't here legally, he's some kind of foreigner, the dribble of crap ola they still put out. i think that's dangerous. >> i think it is dang are you, damaging, but i do think jay asked the right question. which joni ernst will we see in primary joni ernst who was way out there or general election joni ernst, who was much more

mainstream republican, which is virulently anti-obama, right? it's not as if it's. >> so we're talking makeup. hillary give her a hard time. are these political makeup people running after them? today the senate committee on ago consult curl, don't say anything stupid about food. will there be somebody there correcting them? >> there's extraordinary pressure on this, on all the candidates that were selected to kind of take on democrats this cycle, to be the new face of the post-2000 gop. i think they'll be on their best behavior. i doubt we'll see a lot of comments -- >> who is doing the house training? like the dogs? >> you know, they did these are politicians. thee smart people. they can do it themselves. they know what it takes. >> i think mitch mcconnell is

going to do a lot of house training. i think he's going to lay down the law as to what the line is, and how he caucus is going to proceed. now, ted cruz is not going to pay any attention to what he says, but i think others who want to do better, do well in the senate, who want to be there, might want committee assignments -- >> i love the way you talk. there's some talk on the climate change. here it is. >> what we do, mr. gardner, do you believe humans are contributing significantly to climate change? >> i've said -- a long -- i don't think you can say -- >> i don't know the science behind climate change. i can't say one way or another what is the direct impact from whether it's manmade or not. >> i don't necessarily thing the climate is changing, no. >> is this a talking points, jay?

i don't know. is that a safer play to hide than bus a luite. >> or at least the solution for the democrats are -- >> or you can quote the bible. >> that's certainly what inhofe does. he told me ten years ago the greatest hoax to the american people is climate change right after the separation of church and state. >> how about evolution? >> how about gravity? >> or flu shots. >> how about gravity? >> stay away from a flu shot. the terrifying thing is he's absolutely a moderate, doing deals with barbara boxer on transportation. >> other cunning love to hear we have people like this. >> and these guys -- >> no, they follow this stuff. >> they're laughing at us. >> well, they have issues of their own, right?

>> i know. >> we have our issues, and they're weird, frankly, because this posture -- well, gee, i don't know the science, no, because you're not a climatologist. you b. >> pope francis who i adore and obviously accept as my spiritual leader, but also part with politics. he said there's nothing wrong for believing in evolution, but he's out there. and he's out there including knowledge with the human spirituality and good and bad. how can you have truth if you don't have truth? anyway, the roundtable is coming back. up next, crossing over from the dark side, the white house -- allow tortures of prisoners joe cease even guess the u.s. treaty. the state department -- from engaging in torture at all times and all places. this is a big development. ending torture as a national

policy. we'll beg back with "hardball." you get used to the pet odors in your couch.

you think it smells fine, but your guests smell this. eliminate odors you've gone noseblind to with febreze fabric refresher. smells good. so you and your guests can breathe happy. awe supreme court has rejected a request from the state of kansas to delay same-sex marriage in that state. the decision from the highest court brings the number of states where same-sex marriage is permitted to 33. we'll be right back.

we're back with our roundtable. eugene robinson, j. newton small. and well the obama administration today clarified -- that's the word for it -- it's treatment on prisoners. before announcing that the u.n. committee on torture that united states does not condone torture of degrading treatment of those outside the boundaries of or country. and the bush administration interpreted it to be only on u.s. soil. >> as a practical matter, i'm not sure this has an immediate effect. one day, two days after taking office in 2009 president obama signed an executive order ending torture, period, by u.s. personnel any time, anyhow.

but this seems to clarify upped this u.n. convention and to the satisfaction for the u.n. that no, we do not any longer think that potentially we have the right to either condone or practice any sort of torture outside of our borders, given this it's illegal. >> we only have a little time. is this no more waterboarding. >> and gitmo included. >> can't do it there either. >> under our authority. >> where would that be? >> but in operating in a foreign country. i don't know. >> but we're still in iraq and afghanistan. are they still included? >> we're not the government of iraq or afghanistan. i think it's unclear. >> it's absolutely unclear. when are you responsible for torture. if you're an american official who is president of interrogation by a foreign official who is torturing subjects, are you responsible to step in and say you can't do this by american laws. >> is this cheating? >> no, it s he argued the

principle we should be able to do it. >> why not? apparently two reasons, the u.n. convention had asked questions of the u.s., so this is a response. but second, you know, the senate report, intelligence committee report will probably come out some time in december on torture and president obama said we tortured some folks, this could be pretty bad. >> you mean under his watch. >> under bush watch. >> under bush watch. when we come back, let me finish with manned stewardship on this planet. there's a notion, stewardship. boy: once upon a time, there was a nice house that lived with a family. one day, it started to rain. the house tried to keep out all the water, but water got inside and ruined everybody's everythings. the house thought she let the family down. they just didn't think it could happen.

they told the house they would take better care of her... always. announcer: protect what matters. get flood insurance.

let me finish tonight on manned stewardship on this planet. when you go camping you face the usual rule, leave the campsite the way you found it, better if you can. when you go hiking you're encouraged not to leave anything bury along the way. you take with you what you brung. that way the wild areas are there for the next people to come. the next generations to come. i don't like people using religion to argue against conservation. teddy roosevelt was the one that got us started in this duty. he was the lover of the american wilderness. he was the one to say it won't be there in the future if we don't protect it in the present. so what is it with these science deniers, these people who quote scripture, ignore human history and what mankind has learned from the ages? why is it better spiritually to pretend to ignore science.

why is god used to make the case for oil and gas producers, for the koch brothers? you need to throw in the bible? that's "hardball" for now. make sure to join us tomorrow night. should we, the united states military, stay in iraq? "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. tonight on "all in" -- >> we're going to do everything we can during these demonstrations. >> st. louis ready for protest in the wake of the expected grand jury decision in the michael brown case. as the missouri kkk circulates this flyer threatening violence against terrorists masquerading as peaceful protesters. the author of that document joins me tonight. as does the st. louis police chief. then after an electoral drubbing democrats need to