and done, what this appellate process is concluded, i am confident that the verdict that was accepted by the judge tonight will ultimately remain undisturbed on appeal. >> i want to thank everyone for joining us tonight. our coverage of the verdict in the trial in texas continues right here on msnbc. big deals. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. two huge stories tonight, both pointing to historic breakthroughs. the first involves homeland

security and immigration. majority leader mitch mcconnell today called for the senate to separate the issues. he wants a separate strait up or down vote on whether to counter mand the president's executive orders on immigration. the second is a word of breakthrough to win a long-term halt in iran's nuclear program. we'll get to that biggie next. let's start with mitch mcconnell's okay to move ahead with a homeland security bill, but also with a separate bill to counter mand president obama's executive orders on immigration. weapon kelly oy donnell to tell us what this all means. it's an interesting division, it will have a vote to basically avoid a shutdown. security spending, but also expos those moderate and conservative democrats to perhaps vote against the president and vote to countermand his executive orders on immigration. >> exactly. mitch mcconnell has come with an idea that would take the heat

off republicans and congress and really all of congress by findic a way to fund the department of homeland security and do the sort of right thing. but he also wanted to keep the pressure on democrats and the president over the executive orders on immigration. so he found a path. we don't yet know if that will work, but what he's come up with a willingness to do that funding bill without any restrictions dealing with the immigration order, what it's known as a clean way to keep the department of homeland security funded for the whole fiscal year. then on friday, he says he wants to hold a vote, much more narrow, to say that congress would in fact stop the president from having the funding just to implement the november executive order, a limited approach, less than what was in the original house bill, but a way to especially have those centrist democrats who have publicly said the president went too far, to have to answer on a bill to be called to really put their name

on this. we don't know if it will work, chris, because senate democratic leader harry reid is saying not so fast, i want assurances from john boehner that house republicans will go along. he's leaning on the fact that sometimes speaker boehner has said yes, sir he agrees with something, but hasn't been able to brings hi conference along. >> it sounds like harry doesn't like the way this is going, but it seems mcconnell is a wily fox her. he takes the heat off the republicans, because they're not holding up funding for homeland security in the wake of all these discussions about the mall of america and things like that. at the same time, isn't he putting a scorches heat on those moderate and isn't ris democrats you mentioned who may well not want toe caught for voting for president's perhaps overradio etch on immigration? >> exactly that. >> it's so important to republicans and to try to stop the president.

there are so few opportunities for them to do that with respect too those executive orders they'll fund the department, but they'll show democrats a chance to say, are you with the president or are you not when it comes to that particular executive order. >> smart fella, that mitch mcconnell. i'm in the sure he's right, but he's smart. thank you for the great report. >> good to see you. last, clair mccaskill said this about the president's actions on immigrationsh senator mccaskey joins me now if you were to get a freestanding vote would you vote for a countermand? >> it's not that i would vote for countermand. i would rather debate and vote by congress doing its job, chris. we need to debate immigration reform.

we hammered out a bill that wasn't perfect, but it was exactly what we do in a democracy. we had a lot of republican support for the by. we sent it to the house almost two years ago, and they never took it up to debate it. we've got to decide whether our job is to play political football with the president, or whether our job is to legislate fixing a broken system. that's what we should be focused on. >> well, the republicans in the senate, your colleagues up there seem to want to do anything they can to eliminate what obama, the president, did last fall. you see there's going to be a vote, does it look like the majority leader will have his way? >> first what will will have to happen is they'll have to fund the department of homeland security. we had need to speak with one voice. right notice we need to not be playing political games with the funding let's get that funded. the republicans are in charge. they can bring up whatever they

want to bring up, and let's debate it, let's amend it. let's try to hammer out a solution. just overturning his orders puts us right back where we are with a broken system, with not enough protection at the border, without the kind of resources we need to provide a lot of industries that are depending on green cards. we have to fix this system. this is what congress has gotten so bad at. our muscles about legislating have atrophied. we need to remember our job is to compromise and get legislation passed, not just beat up the president. >> the senate did a great job with a dozen republican supporting you guys. you've got a good immigration reform bill. i think it's first rate. i wish the house would pass it, but now we're stuck with a court system that looks lick it could well declare what the president did last fall unconstitutional. that leaves you back to square one as well, wouldn't it? >> that's the point.

i wish that more people would be asking speaker boehner, well, what is your idea? not what upsets you about the president, but what is your solution for the immigration problem? it's not realize tick that we can deport 2 million people in this country. so why do we give them a pass? why can they just be negative? why can't they be constructive with a plan? it's like they say they'll repeal and replace health care reform. have you ever seen replace? >> if i condition candid, you don't have to be. they have 218 votes in districts that don't have a significant number of latino voters. this is an ethnic thing. they figure they can stand hard against illegal immigration, because they don't have to deal with it politically. >> they need to talk to agricultural interests in this country and chamber of commerce and need to talk to businesses about whether or not -- and the talent we are losing in this

country because of the difficulty of highly educated people to be allowed to remain in this country. yes, they're all in safe districts and yes they're all worried about their either right or left flank and the moderate people have kind of gone away in the house, but it does remove the responsibility to be a constructive partner, debate bills, compromise on bills and try to pass bills. i don't think the american people are going to be excited about a republican majority that just figures out every day a new way to beat up the president. >> well said. thank you, senator clair mccaskill. >> thanks, chris. one of the -- mark warner of virginia has gone on record criticizing the president's executive actions on illegal immigration. last fall he told reports, the best way to get a comprehensive heifer joins you now from capitol hill. it looks to me like mesh mcconnell has been very much the wily fox here.

by saying he's not going to hold up funding for homeland security at this time of theories and worries coming at us. at the same times he's making folks deal with the issue of the way the president handled the issue of illegal immigration last fall. >> chris, let's take them one at a time. the fact is it would be crazy to cut off funding to homeland security? we have 17,000 dhs employees in virginia alone, the idea of al shabaab putting out videos, threatening malls, this is not the time to stop funding homeland security. 9 numbers had already been agreed on, this is simply an add-on by the republicans. at the end of the day, whether this plan that the majority leader has put forward, if we end up coming back and the how 1i6r7ly sticks back on the conditions, we have not made brogue.

>> by why doesn't the senate just do its job and pass a clean bill? he's up to something here, harry reid. he is doing something here. you guys, especially him, seem to be worried that you have to vote on this immigration freestanding part of it. >> listen as someone who said i wish the president would have done it legislatively, i think they should have taken up the immigration bipartisan bill that the senate passed, that 14 republicans voted for, and we have already seen the court put a hold on that act, i would not vote for that standalone bill that rolls back the executive order. whether it was for dream others or parents or previous dreamers who had not been covered by the earlier action, i think that would have been part of the immigration reform i supposed in the past.

why would i vote against it now? >> it's. >> do you believe it was constitutional. >> i think the courts will rule on that. >> hey, where is your ruling? >> that's why i never became a lawyer, but a businessman instead. >> why doesn't the senate do its job in passing a clean homeland security bill to fund through the next segment -- from now to october 1st. why not do that and expect the house to do what it has to do. >> chris, you and i know that you and i and a few folks who follow the insides/outsides of who is up and who is down are very few in number in terms of house and senate. what the american people want, what the people of virginia want, they want to make sure that homeland security doesn't go without funding after friday night at midnight. the only way to do that is a bill with no riders to the president of the united states. >> you're my kind of democrat, i hope that doesn't hurt you for me to say that. >> thank you, chris. that news comes just days,

of course, before israeli prime minister netanyahu's controversial address to the congress. plus hillary clinton talks to the women of silicon valley. she's connecting with her base for 2016, women, that's a big change in strategy, from the last time she ran. what's next for the secretary of veterans affairs. he apologized again today for saying he was falsely in the military's special forces. he said he was trying to connect with a homeless veteran, has no excuse for making a statement that wasn't true. finally let me finish with the upbeat news from iran. it is good news. this is "hardball," the place for politics. meta health bars help promote heart health. experience the meta effect with our multi-health wellness line. ♪ ♪ i already feel like we're the most connected but i think this solo date will seal the deal. sure! i offer multi-car, safe driver,

and so many other discounts that people think i'm a big deal. and boy, are they right. ladies, i can share hundreds in savings with all of you! just visit progressive.com today. but right now, it's choosing time. ooh! we have a winner. all: what? [chuckles] he's supposed to pick one of us. this is a joke, right? that was the whole point of us being here. nat majority leader mitch mcconnell says the u.s. senate will take up an override. the president you thissed the veto late this afternoon. it's the third of his

presidency, only the third of his presidency, and mcconnell promises the senate will consider an override no later than march. the keystone pipeline bill passed the senate last month by a vote of 62-36. as it now stands it looks like mcconnell will unlikely have the majority needed to override the veto.

the policy is iran will not get a nuclear weapon. and anybody running around right now jumping in to say, well, we don't like the deal or this or that, doesn't know what the deal is. there is no deal yet. i caution people to wait and see what these negotiations produce. the p-5 plus one talks have made inroads. we've halted the progress of tehran's nuclear program. wean gained unprecedented insight and we expect to know soon whether iran is willing to put together an acceptable and

verifiable plan. that of course was secretary of state john kerry testifying today. yesterday he met with his iranian counterpart in geneva, and both sides are reporting progress. the associated press reports one variation being discussed would place at least a ten-year regime of strict controls on iran's uranium enrichment. one issue critics are certain to focus on, once the deal expired, iran could theoretically ramp up enrichment to whatever it wanted. there are plenty of obstacles, including very vocal critics both in tehran and here in washington. israel's prime minister netanyahu is planning to speak to the congress on march 3rd, where he's likely to criticize a potentially deal with iran. ann curry is just back from covering the nuclear talks in geneva. it's great to have you on for anything, but this hot story, i

am one of those who really is hopeful. i don't want to go to war with iran, because i don't think it will ever end. i don't think we'll get tougher sanctions that we have now, so i think the one route to avoiding an arsenal nuclear weapons in the hands of the ayatollahs is what we are doing. do we have hope now? >> i think. in the past we have learned that not talking to iran actually doesn't work, that in fact when you don't talk to iran, they actually increase the number the centrifuges. i learned from somebody who was actually in the room -- imagine this, chris -- that right after 9/11, then iranian president ha tami actually offered the united states that he would limit the number of centrifuges to 164 centrifuges, because the united states was not talking to iran, we did not take that deal. now we're talking about trying to pull back thousands of centrifuges from iran. so the idea of talking to iran

is actually ultimately going to be safer. the question when you talk about bibbi netanyahu coming to speak, is what the ultimately be the guts of the deal. i flew back with the secretary of state back from geneva on his government plane, we don't know the specifics of the deal. we've already been told even the things they've agreed to can be changed until they finally sign the bottom line which won't be until june. there is a deadline, as you just talked about, at the end of march. the interesting thing about that deadline that most people don't realize is it's not march 31st -- well probably now, because the persian new year's begins on march 21st just as the united states negotiators refused to negotiate through tangs giving, it is highly unlikely that the negotiators will want to continue to negotiate past the 21st, so that talks about in a matter of weeks 2450e6g9 to nail this thing down

if they want to make a political framework that ultimately will lead to the kind of deal you are you are talking about. >> ann, you talked about the reduce the number of centrifuges. are they retrenching, destroying what they have or simply agreeing to a lower number of centrifuges? >> you know, i think the real confusion -- we talk about enrichment and centrifuges. it becomes very, very complicated, because it's really about nuclear science, it's about physics. i think it's hard for people to really understand. i can tell you the debate is how many centrifuges to allow iran to still have, but the real way to understand this is in what you talked about earlier, the breakout capacity. how long would it take iran to build a nuclear bomb -- a nuclear weapon bomb, and currently what we understand is on the table is that iran would

be limited to one year. in other words, it would take them a year. they would have the things, the centrifuges, enrich uranium, all those ingredients, it would take a year to work with the tools to create a bomb. i need to hasten to add that iran has insisted that it has no interest in building a nuclear bomb, that it's against its faith, it's again shariah, and it's a mull his country, and that comes from the leader, but the things it needs for a nuclear program for what it says are peaceful purposes are the same sorts of ingredients, as it will need for making a weapon. so the question comes down to trust. so the interesting thing that -- interesting step forward that happened during this particular round of talks, is for the first time, two other cabinet members came along with those two men you see on the screen, the

iranian foreign minister on the left, and the secretary of state john kerry on the right. along with them, both of them brought their energy secretaries. the united states energy secretary joined the talks along with his iranian counterpart. these two men went to m.i.t. to study physics. we're told it was possible that they were almost there at the same time, though we have not learned whether or not they ever actually knew each other. these two people are considered just brainiacs on the subject matter. most anyone, most anybody at that table will probably not fully understand unless they have the voice of these highly trained people every itsy-bitsy part of that. i use the word itsy-bitsy, because i'm obviously one of those people who can't claim to understand nuclear physics. i think those two people at the

table brought a degree of comfort and credibility to the talks. i think it was clear, though no one was speaking publicly on the record, it was clear that there was a degree of comfort that their brainpower brought this time that it created. >> encouraged. i am hopeful at that report. thank you so much. i hope we can avoid a war and hopefully avoid them ever getting a nuclear weapon. 50 years after selma, we look back on the march that changed america, and the president that helped delivered the right to vote for everyone. lbj. this is "hardball," the place for politics.

we're back to "hardball." there's been a lot of talk this week about selma, of course, next week president obama is going down to alabama to commemorate that 50th anniversary of the historic event when civil rights demonstrators were met with police violence in selma. last week, u.s. congressman john lewis of georgia, spoke on cbs

about the legacy of that historic day. >> i don't think as a group we had any idea that our marching feet across that bridge would have such an impact 50 years later. if it hadn't been for that march across the bridge, there would be no barack obama as president of the united states of america. joseph califano was the chief assistance to president lyndon johnson. he's the author of a memoir. joe, thank you for joining us. who was the greatest civil rights president? >> i think it's a toss-up from lincoln and johnson. i think there's no one closer to them. linking with the iman pace proclamation, but johnson did put a lot of flesh on it, with the civil rights act prohibiting

discrimination, and public accommodations. the voting rights act, which is john lose willis just said, is really a partnership between johnson and martin luther king, and the fair housing act in 1968, in the wake of king's assassination. i think lbj has to be way up there, and affirmative action, let's not forget that. >> you know, driving down to spring break back at holy cross, where you went as well, i remember driving through the south, georgia, places like that, there were still those "white only" signs, a though they were outlawed, they were still flowing out there. it shows you how life was. you remember what it was like in the early '60s. >> i know it. listen, i was in the navy from 1955 to 1958. the theaters were segregated, even -- remember, the great august '63 march, i was in the

pentagon, and i worked with the walter font leroy and -- two great civil rights leaders, to help that march. i remember we had trouble with the hotels. they didn't want to take black clients in the hotels, hotels like the mayflower, all these great hotels. they wanted no part of it. >> people forget d.c. was a segregated city, very much a southern city. 91964 civil rights act passed with 4 out of 5 republicans. people don't believe the republican party in those days. all but six republican senators in the entire u.s. senate. the voting rights act passed with similar support in the house. joe, you know that city what happened with those republicans like all those people who they would be scorned.

through these i.d. laws. >> well, the i.d. laws, and they've been drum out of the republican party. one of the great things about those years that people forget is that virtually all those civil rights laws, and all of those great society laws were passed with significant republican support. >> so what happened? was johnson right that the minute he signed that a bill, he was kissing the south good-bye, but also the moderate republican party good-bye? >> he certainly kissed the south good-bye, though we may see the south inch back, he knew the voting rights act was the most important piece of legislation in his administration, the thing he was most proud of, as minorities and blacks become a bigger and bigger part of 9 voting bloc down there, we're going to see a change in the

south. maybe not in my lifetime. in the next 20 years. let me ask you about this important question. who was joe califano going to endorse for the democratic nomination for the president next year? here is your chance to do what you wish. joe califano now endorses hillary clinton or fails to -- >> let me tell you, i want a bold leader. i think we're at a situation, we need a bold leader. we have income inequality, elf education inequality, climate change, a revolution in communication and technology. we need somebody that's going to go big and bold, and i would hope that whoever the democratic nominee is does that. >> okay. >> not stay in the middle. there's no room in the middle for greatness. you've got to be bold. >> would you like eliz best warren to challenge hillary for the nomination? >> i would love to see a vigorous debate.

whoever the nominee -- >> would elizabeth be able to fight that debate against hillary? >> i think it's going to be very tough. you know that and i know that, especially with the money you need today. we're talking about an election a billion and a half on each side, a $3 billion election, chris. my god. >> john podesta will be calling you tomorrow morning, or tonight perhaps to discuss your inability to get behind a candidatejust teasing. you're a powerful voice against the evils of addiction and things like that, but i thought you may favor us tonight. >> bold is beautiful for me, and i hope that any democratic candidate will be bold. i think that's -- you know, look at the last century, chris. theodore roosevelt, frankly roosevelt, lyndon johnson, they didn't go to the middle. they went bold and brought the middle to them. that's what the democratic party

has to do. >> you've had your say and you've had your chance and you've blown it. [ laughter ] >> the book is called "the trust ump and tragedy of lyndon johnson" with a new introduction by joe califano. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics.

if you want to succeed in business, mistakes are a luxury you can't afford. that's why i recommend fast reliable comcast business internet. they know what businesses need. and there's a no-mistake guarantee. if you don't like it, you have thirty days to call and get your money back. with comcast business internet you literally can't mook a mistick. i meant to say that. switch today and get the no mistake guarantee. comcast business. built for business.

now back to "hardball." hillary clinton was back in

the spotlight today, late today speaking before a crowded room at a women's conference where she was reportedly paid a speaking fee of $300,000, according to "the washington post." well, hillary clinton was making her 2016 pitch to what is referred to as the upwardry mobile professional women, or some called them the lean-in voters. hillary hit the gender themes hard to leaning in as a champion for women. here she is. >> my friend mail lynn albright famously said -- there's a special spot in hell for women who don't help other women. so what you do does not have to be big and dramatic, you don't have to run for office. wow. as nbc's andrea mitchell put it last time hibbard hibbard ran el she played down her gender.

well, this time her role as mother and grandmother already central to her campaign, according to her divorces, being the first female candidate likely -- is of course the change part of hillary 2.0, intended to mitigate against her age and the fact she could be or would be the second clinton if she wins the white house. joining us is amanda turkel, former republican chairman michael 1250e8, and steve mcmahon. he is a strategist, by the way. first of all, before we went to break, i'm asking and others on the roundtable, i guess people in our posters were hillary first name, to separate it from bill. and we at times say w., so we are used to separating people from the same surname by their first name. but i also try to say secretary clinton, i try to say senator

clinton. let's get back to women. she's not running as just another candidate. she running, it seems from this, as a woman candidate. >> she was reaching out to women today who see themselves in hillary clinton. they are upwardly mobile women who sit at a table full of men and they think i'm smarter than all these guys, why am i not in charge? i'm sure she's thought that many times. >> but they could be wrong. i think i'm smarter than everybody, too. i could be wrong. go on. >> i think more men think that than women think that. i think they would like to see hillary break that final barrier, the glass ceiling finally break. they have money and they'd fund race for you. >> do you think as a journalist or as a person, if she's elected as a -- she's quite plausibly the next president. every time i give speeches,

every guy in the room has a question. women don't do it. is that me? >> it will take a while. women often don't run for office -- >> how about this, put your hand up. >> they aren't encouraged, they don't say i see a senator or president. if they see a woman as president, they might start to think that more and be encouraged and told they're smart. >> i have four daughters, i tell them they look pretty and they're smart. i thought it was very interesting what she was doing today. she seems mindful of the fact that 53 period of time of voters in any race for anything are women. she was very, very explicit about -- >> in california, by the way, it's about 60% of the democratic party are women. >> the other interesting thing is she basically said there were two things the next president needs to do. one, make the economy work for everybody, especially the middle class, major wage growth a priority, but the second thing she talked about is we need

somebody who can bring the left and right together. people often thing of clinton as a polarizing figure, but the mother and grandmother -- >> you think that's the maccia very wellian, i'm a grandmother, i can make -- >> i'm a woman, and that's another advantage, women can bring people together. >> bo beeny kennedy said hang a lantern on your problem. don't try to hide from it. is being a grandmother, which i'm heard she's pushing -- is a way of saying i'm a little older, but there's a plus to that? >> i think it humanizes her. it puts her in the mainstream of conversations at kitchen tables around the country. it puts her in the mainstream of living room where grandmas and granddads are sitting there playing with their grandkids and watching her give a speech. i think that's something she wants to tap into this time. i was amazed in watching her and

kind of smiling, it's sore of like the where's waldo of politics today? where is hillary? >> she's where they're paying $300,000. that's a heck of a lot of money for an hour. >> she's not only a grandmother, but a smart businesswoman. >> to get in i think it was like $300. >> getting paid to talk to her base. >> well, that's cute. actress patricia arquette voiced her loud support and got a standing ovation for the issue of equal pay. here it is. >> to every taxpayers and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else's equality rights. it's our time to have wage equality once and for all, and equal rights for women in the united states of america. >> that's of course meryl streep seconding the argument. earlier today hillary clinton seconded herself arquette's call

for page fairness. here is the secretary. >> women are paid less for the same work, which is why i think we all cheered at patricia arquette's speech at the oscar. she's right. it's time to have wage equality once and for all. >> so the bills out there, the bill we are fighting over here, is to somehow make it work, wage equality. it doesn't work for a lot of reasons. >> right. this would be a focus of hillary clinton's administration if she did take office. she had the final frontier is equal opportunities for women and girls. she did this as secretary of state. her argument today was in some ways economic. we can't succeed if we're only utilizing half our population. we need they family-friendly policies that help not only women, but help men. i think that will be a big focus, more than last time. >> years ago i got away for writing an article about political parenthood, how the

made candidates of the republican party is for guns, national defense, capital punishment, tough, the democratic party is for health care, education, child development, women's issues. i'm not saying that anymore, but hillary seems to be very carefully saying i'll be the mommy party, i'll say it, health care, education, equal play, i will play that part. i'm 23409 running for general of the armies here. >> i think that's probably true, but she'll get tripped up when the facts come out that she's caught in that pay equity gap just like every other employer out there, given what women made in her office as secretary of state. >> aren't those government statutory -- >> gull you're the secretary, you can change that. >> you have that knife in your pocket. you had that ready. >> i'm just saying dish. >> the central bers are the numbers.

>> do you have the facts on this? >> yes, i do, and it's been reported, but again, this is part of the conversation we're going to have, and that as she steps out, a lot of these things will come out how she handles them. >> do you want to say something here? >> i think michael is grasping, and her salary is set by statute. >> not her, her employees, the women who worked in her office. >> i think andrea mitchell is absolutely right. she was the candidate who happened to be a female candidate last time. this time she'll be the female candidate for president, and she's going to play it. don't underestimated second part which i mentioned a moment ago. people are so tired of the gridlock which is represented and embodied by all the men fighting all the time in washington, and only the women can make things happen. >> if you had general petraeus to run, he's a very smart guy and would play the daddy party very well. >> if he decides to run, we'll be ready for hillary. this is the least of our concerns. >> i like the way your eyes flashed there.

the roundtable is staying with us. up next, what is forr next for the secretary of veterans affairs after apologizing for saying he was in the special forces. he was not. i don't get this one. this is "hardball," the place for politics. ll just look younger new olay total effects with more vitamins than the leading prestige moisturizer to fight 7 signs of aging. in just 4 weeks, skin looks up to 10 years younger. from the world's #1. olay. your best beautiful there's nothing more romantic than a spontaneous moment. so why pause to take a pill? and why stop what you're doing to find a bathroom? with cialis for daily use, you don't have to plan around either. it's the only daily tablet approved to treat erectile dysfunction

so you can be ready anytime the moment is right. plus cialis treats the frustrating urinary symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently, day or night. 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 symptoms of an allergic reaction stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. why pause the moment? ask your doctor about cialis for daily use. for a free 30-tablet trial go to cialis.com the american people are growing, more supportive of a military campaign. according to a new pew poll, catch this -- 63% approve the u.s. campaign against the mill tan group.

only 30% disapproved. when asked whether they support sending ground tubes to fight isis, americans are evenly split. 47% favor the idea. 49% oppose it. that's a 14-point swing towards ground troops since october. and i have felt it myself. we'll be right back.

0

veterans affairs secretary robert mcdonald is apologizing again too old about falsely saying that he served in the special forces. he made the statement while speaking to a homeless man in los angeles and it was included in a cbs report that aired last month. >> yes.

really? army, navy, air force? >> army. >> special forces. i was in special forces. in a press conference, he called the remark a mistake and tried to explain why he said it. >> in an attempt to connect with that veteran to make him feel comfortable, i incorrectly stated that i, too, had been in special forces. that was wrong and i have no excuse. my biggest motivation was to connect with the veteran. it was a misstatement. >> this comes after mcdonald also overstated the number of people who have been fired. but the white house said yesterday they are stand i by him. as a fellow republican, i like to connect -- as a fellow g.o.p.'er i would like to feel connected.

we know now with brian, o riley, and there is big debate. resumé inflation real or accused is a big debate. >> something about people wanting to connect request our people my military. how they served. how they have interacted with the military. >> there is a series of candidates who have said i served in vietnam. >> i don't understand what that is. the american people, they get it, they're not looking for you and certainly i'm sure that the soldier thought now i'm more connected. >> how about giving him a job. >> thank you, this guy is a homeless guy. let's start with that idea. whether you're in television or politics, this is -- >> i don't want to get into

names or media criticism, including people from my network, but is this immediate. >> you were looking at us. people have a hemmingway kind of background. there has to be a back story. >> hillary did this too welcome dodging sniper fire. >> i think, you know as michael was saying, there is a little bit of, you want to show that your a little tougher. this may be more common with men, but secretary mcdonald did serve in the military. the second military is not even -- do they jump out of airplanes. he served in the 82nd air force before. >> they have a whole discussion about media guys watched over now and gotten in trouble. he must know it is in the air, don't inflate.

>> i think it is a sign they may not have complete and total confidence -- >> someone pushed him? >> go do your news conference and we'll see how well you handle it later. i will tell you one thing, you're probably not going to hear a lot about this on fox news for obvious reasons, and i think that is probably good for him. republicans, you know, love to take these things and pick apart -- >> why wouldn't they go after him? >> they have the bill o'riley problem sitting there and his embellishment was similar to this. >> thank you to my guests.

just because i'm away from my desk doesn't mean i'm not working. comcast business understands that. their wifi isn't just fast near the

router. it's fast in the break room. fast in the conference room. fast in tom's office. fast in other tom's office. fast in the foyer [pronounced foy-yer] or is it foyer [pronounced foy-yay]? fast in the hallway. i feel like i've been here before. switch now and get the fastest wifi everywhere. comcast business. built for business. let me finish with the upbeat news from iran. they can go along with a deal that at minimum delays any plans they have for building nuclear weapons. that would end the sanctions and put them back on a path way to make them a real economic rival of israel over a long haul. but the present reality of power and with conventional military strength.

the two alternatives are to stiff the u.s. on a deal, taking a chance that we could not toughen the sanctions against them and feeling that we would not attack them militarily or would not help israel do it. those second and third options don't seem that sane to me. an american president cannot no matter his i'd congress. put up with can that. the news that we got was real, and a good prospect of keeping iran well short of getting nuclear weapons. i bet the majority of israelis do not. when we go to a hot war with iran, there is no counting on

the consequences. we listened to the neocons who cheered us. we listened to those who loved the sight of a toppling egypt and hoping for a toppling syria. let's hope that they are sane in iran even as the screwballs on our side of the world cheer for yet another u.s. war with far worse consequences than we can imagine. is that is hardball for now. thanks for being with us. "all in" with chris hayes starts