right now on "andrea mitchell reports," back to the bench. the president's health care plan faces what could be a lethal challenge at the supreme court today. >> health care under attack! stand up fight back! >> we aren't asking for a handout, just a fair chance. >> this is about real people. >> the issue before the supreme court is relatively simple. >> we know that one size fits all health care does not work. >> taking the hill. benjamin netanyahu fired up republicans, but the president wants to know how would he stop iran without a nuclear deal. >> mr. obama said you have no viable alternative. >> andrea it's very clear to

me and it was clear for anyone who was there, that the support for israel is strongly bipartisan. >> we'll get answers straight ahead with israel's ambassador to the united states. and you've got mail. revelations about foreign do nation -- donations to the clinton foundation and her use of personal e-mails, but they're not slowing down hillary clinton. >> i suppose it's only fair to say, don't you some day want to see a woman president of the united states of america? good day. i'm andrea mitchell in washington. supreme court arguments have just concluded on a legal challenge that goes to the heart of the president's affordable care act. at issue is whether states that

rely on the federal health care exchange can provide subsidies to make it more affordable. if the court rules against the white house, 8 million people could lose their coverage and premiums for millions more would skyrocket, making the plan basically unsustainable. joining me now from the supreme court is nbc justice correspondent pete williams. pete, there is everything at stake here for both sides. >> that's right. and three years ago, andrea when obamacare was under a legal challenge here on the constitutional basis right after it was born chief justice john roberts asked some very critical questions of the government, which led us to believe he was going to vote to strike it down and you'll recall he was the fifth vote to uphold it. here's what chief justice roberts said today. almost nothing. he may be a key vote again, and we didn't really get any insight about what he believes. the other usual swing justice here anthony kennedy, seemed to be of two minds. he seemed to agree with the challengers at the bare words of the law may not be where the government wants it to be may

not say you get the subsidies whether you're in the state or federal exchange but he said if you go with the challenger side that may be an anti-federalist coercion of the states. it may force the states to set up an exchange to they don't deprive their citizens of the subsidy. a lot is at stake here today because roughly 7 million people depend on the federal subsidy who get their insurance in the healthcare.gov federal exchange. they get an average of 72% discount on their insurance because of the subsidy. it's critical for many of them to be able to afford it. as you might have expected today, andrea, the court's liberals seem to side with the government today saying the statute doesn't make any sense if you read it the way the challengers do. but the court's conservative justices scalia and alito, were the most energetic in questioning the government's lawyer today, saying the statute

may not make a lot of sense if you read it the way congress does, but the court doesn't have any choice but to do so. so bottom line here, andrea a lot is at stake, and you can't predict what's going to happen based on this argument. >> and if the court were to agree with the challengers, they know, and justice kennedy, who is often a swing vote they know that they are overturning something that has become an accepted part of the health care system now for a couple of years. >> they certainly do. they know the stakes. they're well aware of the numbers here. but the only people who brought that up today were the justices on the government side the more liberal justices who pointed out how much people depend on these subsidies. but the fact the law has been in existence, would that discourage the court from pulling the plug on it? i think the answer to that is no. they're going to decide this on the bare legal principles.

if sympathy were a big factor here, we didn't hear a lot about it. >> and finally, pete what was fascinating to me was to read what you're so familiar with how this all came about. there were lawyers at the treasury who were writing the law, and one or two of them may have noticed these three or four words, which point out the state exchanges rather than making room for the federal exchange, an exchange established by the state were the words, and they did discuss this in their meetings, you know, when they were writing the law, but they went ahead anyway. >> the legal theory here was discovered by one single legal scholar. you're right. what the law says is that you are entitled to the subsidy if you get your insurance on quote, an exchange established by the state. now, the bare words, which sure seem to indicate the challengers have a very powerful point, because if hhs comes in and sets up the exchange it's not an exchange established by the state.

the government's lawyer's argument is, oh yes, it is because if you look elsewhere in the law, the federal exchange stands in the shoes of the exchange established by the state so it still counts. a bit of a convoluted argument, but it may carry the day. it's just impossible to tell. >> pete you're always where all the action is. thank you so much. at the supreme court today. we turn from the supreme court to the federal court. the federal courthouse in boston where the long-awaited boston bombing trial got under way this morning. during opening arguments a federal prosecutor told jurors that suspect dzhokhar tsarnaev had, quote, murder in his heart, as he debttonated two bombs near the finish line of the boston marathon. tsarnaev's lawyers argued he was being controlled by his brother. dozens of bombing victims are in the courtroom today watching proceedings. tsarnaev could face the death penalty if convicted. he has pleaded not guilty to all

charges. nbc's rehema ellis is outside the courthouse in boston and joins me now. this could boil down to an argument a defense argument against the death penalties. that's what they're trying to argue, is it not, that in fact he was not the prime person involved. and of course the federal argument is he was a co-conspirator. >> absolutely, andrea. it may well indeed boil down to that. in the opening statements this morning by the defense attorney judy clark, she described the defendant's actions as, quote, they're inexcusable. she went on to say, quote, a series of senseless acts caused by two brothers. but then she went on to say it's going to be a lot to ask of you, but we ask you to keep your hearts and minds open. understand that this defense attorney is one who also tried the case for ted kosinski, the

unibomber. men who could have been subjected to the death penalty, but judy clark was on that defense team that managed to get them life in prison instead of the death penalty. so they are conceding some things that the government has already stated. but she's saying to these injuries, keep your hearts and minds open because this jury it should be pointed out, if they find tsarnaev is guilty of these charges against him, 17 of the 30 charges carry the death penalty. and this same jury will be asked to determine whether or not he should be sentenced to death. >> and rehema at the same time, right now the head of the boston marathon is the first witness up. and he's a key witness because for them to prove that was, quoted a weapon of mass destruction, he has to describe how many people were involved more than 27,000 how many people were injured, what the scene was there at the marathon. >> indeed he does.

and the running of the boston marathon is a wonderful tradition here in boston. and it's a family day. and in his opening statement, the prosecutor painted that picture that families were out enjoying. he also mentioned that tsarnaev was a man who was seen in video placing this backpack with a bomb inside in front next to a row of children. and one of the children killed was 8-year-old martin richard. and he described a horrific scene, explaining in detail this bomb was designed to tear the flesh. he created an image that i suspect was hard for the jurors to hear. >> rehema ellis, on day one of this very important case, thank you very much. and the next round of rough winter weather is rolling across the country. a year's worth of snow could fall in parts of kentucky and tennessee. nbc's dylan dreyer has more from boston where of course they could beat all-time records for snow totals. >> hi andrea.

we are here in boston just waiting to cross that line to break the record for all-time snowiest winter ever for the city of boston. the record was set back in 1995 '96. that season this area picked up 107.6 inches of snow. we need two more inches to break that record. we're trying, but the city of boston, the people i've spoken with say they don't want any more snow. we had four major snowstorms in just four weeks, from the end of january through the first few weeks in february. and a lot of that snow is right here. this giant mountain behind me is a 40-foot-high pile of dirty snow. it's what's been collected from the city and it's been dumped here at this snow dumping site. now residents really just don't even want to break that record. but there's a possibility we could, especially as we go into thursday. there's a bigger storm system that's going to bring snow back through the midwest, through the ohio river valley but washington, d.c. philadelphia new york city by thursday could end up with 5 to 8 inches of

snow. but that two inches we need here in boston it looks like it might fall just south of here. we'll be close. i'm not sure we'll get it this week. but the week after, we have a pattern shift and should see warmer temperatures. up next, round two, israel's attempts to take down the iran talks. israel's ambassador to the united states ron dermer joins me next. this is "andrea mitchell reports" only on msnbc. i bring the gift of the name your price tool to help you find a price that fits your budget. uh-oh. the name your price tool. she's not to be trusted. kill her. flo: it will save you money! the name your price tool isn't witchcraft! and i didn't turn your daughter into a rooster. she just looks like that. burn the witch! the name your price tool a dangerously progressive idea. i want my foyer to smell more like a foyer. i want his bedroom to smell like he's away at boarding school.

surround yourself with up to 6 hours of luxurious, long-lasting scents... ...introducing new unstopables air refresher. sunday dinners at my house... it's a full day for me, and i love it. but when i started having back pain my sister had to come help. i don't like asking for help. i took tylenol but i had to take six pills to get through the day. so my daughter brought over some aleve. it's just two pills, all day! and now, i'm back! aleve. two pills. all day strong, all day long. and now introducing aleve pm for a better am. ameriprise asked people a simple question: in retirement, will you have enough money to live life on your terms? i sure hope so. with healthcare costs, who knows. umm... everyone has retirement questions. so ameriprise created the exclusive confident retirement approach. now you and your ameripise advisor....

can get the real answers you need. start building your confident retirement today. ♪ ♪ ♪ "here i am. rock you like a hurricane." ♪ fiber one now makes cookies. find them in the cookie aisle.

for over a year we've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. well, this is a bad deal. it's a very bad deal. we're better off without it.

[ applause ] now we're being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. that's just not true. the alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal. >> israel's prime minister benjamin netanyahu pleading with congress not to accept the nuclear deal with iran. president obama immediately pushed back at the white house. >> we're staying focused on the central issue here how do we prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon? the path that we've proposed if successful, by far is the best way to do that. that's demonstrable. and prime minister netanyahu has not offered any kind of viable alternative that would achieve the same verifiable mechanism to prevent iran from getting a

nuclear weapon. >> i'm joined now by israel's ambassador to the united states ron dermer. thank you very much. president obama said that benjamin netanyahu, your prime minister, in his address to congress didn't offer an alternative. what is the alternative to having negotiations with iran? is the alternative no deal? that way iran could break out and produce as many nuclear bombs as they liked. >> the alternative is a much better deal. the prime minister of israel said two specific things. it should be a better deal that will extend the breakout time. right now what the u.s. is saying, they'll keep a year breakout time. that's way too short. >> what is a good breakout time? >> the longer the breakout time which means the less infrastructure they have the less likelihood you are to face a problem if iran cheats which they've done in the past or if they define specters which they've done in the past. this is not a regime you can trust. but netanyahu said something else. he said any deal should not

automatically have restrictions which expire at a fixed date. what if we're facing an iran ten years ago that's like the iran we face today? ten years from now, excuse me. that's like the iran we face today, which is aggressive in the region which calls for israel's ieannihilation. are we going to then have an iran with no restrictions on its nuclear program? that's why the prime minister said this deal these two problems with the deal don't block iran's path to the bomb they pave iran's path to the bomb. >> iran's president today has criticized israel for having nuclear weapons, for not being a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. >> i'm not going to comment on that other than to say israel does not threaten other countries with annihilation. we're not devouring countries in the region. iran right now controls four arab capitals. baghdad, beirut damascus, and sana. iran is the foremost sponsor of terrorism around the world. they've defied six u.n. security council resolutions on their

nuclear program. this is not a regime you can trust. and this is not a regime where you want to be in a situation ten years from now, andrea where there'll be no restrictions on their nuclear program. that's what this deal does, and that's why it's a very, very bad deal. >> in an interview with nbc news, the foreign minister who's negotiating this deal has turned it back against israel saying that israel is hand in hand with the al nusra front in israel. >> this is the man who laid a wreath at the grave of a man who's responsible for killing more americans than any terrorist besides osama bin laden. i think we should take what the foreign minister of iran has to say with a very large grain of salt. >> the foreign minister has been meeting with john kerry. kerry is defending the deal and is saying that they will not be influenced by outside officials, that they're proceeding with negotiations and these negotiations are to reach a deal that improves the security. >> well we just have a disagreement here. we agree with the united states. we both want to prevent iran from developing a nuclear

weapon. the question is, does this deal block iran from getting nuclear weapons, or does it pave the path for iran to get nuclear weapons? what the prime minister of israel said yesterday was that it paves the path for iran to get to the bomb. that's the argument he made. i hope that people will deal with his argument seriously and not get sidetracked with all these other things. he gave a very compelling case. i think it was heard by both sides of the aisle yesterday in congress and i hope people will deal with his argument seriously. >> speaking of both sides of the aisle, this was nancy pelosi afterwards. >> i was in near tears because i love israel very much. i value the importance of the relationship between israel and the united states. this is something that means a great deal to us not only as an issue but as a value. and i thought that part of that was undermined by the tone of the prime minister's speech. >> how do you respond to nancy

pelosi? >> she's a friend of israel. we've always appreciated that friendship. i don't know exactly why she felt that. i was there yesterday in congress. i think you saw very strong support on both sides of the aisle. so you have to ask her why she felt that way. what the prime minister felt he had to do, and he felt a deep moral obligation to do it is to come and make his case before the most powerful legislative body in the world on an issue that affects the survival, that could threaten the survival of israel. that's why the prime minister felt it was so important for him to speak. there was no intention whatsoever to inject ourselves into your partisan debate. there was no intention to show disrespect for anybody. certainly not the american people, not the american president. we just felt that we had to speak up at this time before a deal that could threaten the survival of israel would be signed. >> do you have any regrets about the way this was done about not waiting until after israel's election? >> well the problem is a deal may be signed now. so we can't sort of kick this can down the road. i do regret there was a

perception of partisanship. that was never our intention. i do regret there was a perception that we were showing disrespect to the president or to the office of the presidency. no disrespect was intended. and i think what you saw yesterday, andrea was a prime minister make a real case of what his concerns are with this deal and i hope his concerns would be addressed in any final deal and hopefully we'll get a much better deal with iran. >> do you have concerns does israel have concerns that this president, this secretary of state are too eager for a deal? >> well look i think that they definitely want to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. and we just have a disagreement on what is the path to do it. and what the prime minister was saying yesterday is hold firm on these two points. don't make such a short breakout time, and don't remove the restrictions. the new thing that the prime minister said -- i heard a lot of people say over the last 24 hours or so that the prime minister didn't say anything new. he said something very new. he said to link the lifting of the restrictions on iran's

nuclear program to a change in iran's behavior. not a change in the regime but a change in the behavior of the regime. let them stop their aggression in the region. let them stop sponsoring terrorism all over the world. and let them stop threatening israel with annihilation. >> ambassador ron dermer thank you very much for being with us today. >> thank you. >> a long time ago we foiled a plot to destroy the jewish people. i hope the plot of the iranians to destroy the israeli people will be foiled as well. >> well, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> and the president's health care law is challenged yet again in the supreme court as we just reported, but up next two people who helped craft that landmark legislation defend it. and later, a potential republican candidate makes some surprising comments that could cause trouble for him on the campaign trail. you're watching ans inging "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. lease, please, please, please, please. [ male announcer ] the wish we wish above all...is health. so we quit selling cigarettes in our cvs pharmacies. expanded minuteclinic

for walk-in medical care. and created programs that encourage people to take their medications regularly. introducing cvs health. a new purpose. a new promise... to help all those wishes come true. cvs health. because health is everything. you use tide pods? yeah! but i thought you were the queen of the pre-treat soak treat soak? those are fond memories, but those things are amazing. once i saw what they did, i actually started to relax. don't touch my things. those little guys clean, brighten and fight stains. so now i can focus on more pressing matters. like your containers. isn't it beautiful? your sweet peppers aren't next to your hot peppers. [ gasps ] [ sarah ] that's my tide. what's yours? 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. [ male announcer ] at northrop grumman, we know in the cyber world, threats are always evolving. at first we were protecting networks. then, we were protecting the transfer of data. and today it's evolved to infrastructure... ♪ ♪ ...finance... and military missions. we're constantly innovating to advance the front line in the cyber battle, wherever it takes us. that's the value of performance. northrop grumman.

i'm a weight watchers coach, all of us have lost weight with weight watchers and are now helping other people do the same. log into your computer or your phone at anytime and you can chat with me. you're not alone and you can do it. i know you can do it because i did it. join for free today at weightwatchers.com emotions are running high outside the supreme court where

justices heard arguments today over the fate of the affordable care act. nearly 8 million people could lose their coverage if challengers win. >> basically, i had to be a millionaire to afford health insurance. sorry. >> remember obamacare is the president's legislation. so the president has decided since this disaster occurred that if he doesn't like something, he just changes the law. >> joining me now is dr. zeke emanuel and president of the center for american progress one of the architects of the plan. zeke, you heard the arguments in the court.

we talked to pete williams earlier today. how did you interpret the way the justices were questioning the two sides? >> i think it was an extraordinary day for the government. i think don borelli expressed his arguments quite clearly. the four liberal justices said you have to focus on the words of the staut yut. and if you look at the words of the statute, they clearly suggest that by the state, the controversial phrase refers to by the state to a previous part of the bill and that previous part is clearly includes both the state exchange and the federal exchange. i think there was some pretty hostile questioning right away of the plaintiffs and the claim there. i would say that justice kagan made a very interesting analogy. she said, if i asked one of my clerks to write a brief and then i ask another one to edit the brief and then i ask a third, well, if the first person can't write it doesn't have enough

time, you step in and write it what is the editor supposed to do if that person steps in and writes it? the clear point is you're supposed to go in and actually edit that brief. and that is the kind of case we have here. i think that analogy clearly made it in the court. >> there's been a lot written about this and about the treasury department lawyers who may have really messed up in the way they wrote that phrase because na gave the opponents of the law a huge opening to drive through. >> you know i actually think this is why the oral arguments were so important. because i think don borelli really made is clear how it's not actually a mistake. you read every statute together. this is what justices like scalia have argued themselves. what's important about the argument about context is the plaintiffs, people bringing the suit themselves were forced to concede to justice kagan that

you look at the context. if you look at the context of this legislation, it is crystal clear. what i think is really fascinating is how much justice kennedy was really concerned about the federalist argument. what that means is how much people's premiums would increase if they in these states unexpectedly end these subsidies. i think it was a very strong performance by the solicitor general. but you saw conservative justices open to really finding with the government. we'll see what happens, obviously. >> it's hard to -- >> don borelli made the very important point that if you accept the interpretation that the subsidies only go to states that make the exchange there would be no reason to set up a federal backdrop because there would be actually no qualifying purchase in the state and no qualified health plan in the state by the way the statute is written. so it couldn't possibly be what the plaintiffs claim was

actually the correct interpretation. and justice kennedy made this point that this would be extremely coercive to states and it would be extremely coercive by removing billions of dollars. yet, destabilizing their insurance markets that existed with no notice because no one noticed this deal until two years after the bill was passed. so that isn't the proper way of actually the federal government telling the states what the options are. and so i thought on both counts both the statutory interpretation and the federalism argument, don borelli really came out ahead and made a very persuasive argument. >> what about the fact the white house says there's no back-up plan? there's no fall-back plan. what do they do if it is overturned? health care goes away for all these people. so whether you believe it should or shouldn't, shouldn't the white house now have a fallback plan? >> well, two things. first of all, justice scalia suggested, well congress could easily pass a law and just remedy the situation. and it's quite clear that is not

true and that is simply false. in part because to remedy the situation would require finding $350 billion to make those subsidies now. and that's not possible in this congress. don borelli responded to justice scalia and said this congress is going to pass a bill? and that got a very big laugh in the courtroom. but there is no -- i mean part of the problem is if this interpretation holds there is no plan b based on the way they want to view the statute. i don't think the government's being irresponsible. there's no alternative actually if this interpretation holds because you cannot have an exchange in those states. you won't have a qualified buyer. and it would really set the whole insurance market in 34 states upside down and create a lot of chaos. this is really really -- would be a terribly terribly serious problem for the whole country. >> i think the issue here, you know, conservative senators have been saying where's the back-up plan?

so what we're really dealing with is a bunch of conservative activists using the courts because they couldn't achieve their will in the congress they're using the courts to attack a bill. then they're saying to the obama administration, fix our mess. and it can't be fixed. we've looked at it. but that's what's really happening here. there's a very easy solution. they could read the arguments, look at the statute, look at context of the statute, but just look at its effect how it's working today, and do what conservatives have wanted to do in the past which is defer to the congressional branch and find in favor of the government. >> before i let you go, neera, you've worked with hillary clinton over the years. let's talk about this e-mail situation. how do you defend the private e-mail system, not keeping them not, you know, having the clinton circle decide what to disclose to congress or turn over to the state department. you're supposed to archive at the very least. >> well looking at all the coverage over the last couple of days, i know the theory in

washington is to prosecute first and look at the facts later, but some facts have come out. turns out there are regulations that restrict this kind of thing and happened after hillary left. so i think we should actually retry and get to the bottom of what the facts are. hillary is the first secretary of state to turn over e-mails. but i think that this is an opportunity for us to take a breath, look through the facts here, and i think we'll learn more in the days to come. >> but there was a 2009 law that did require keeping records, holding on to archiving. and that was apparently not observed. >> obviously they kept the records because many e-mails have been turned over. so records were kept. the question is what were the restrictions about using e-mail and those didn't happen until later, as far as we can see, from some of the latest reporting. >> and who decides what gets turned over. >> yes, i agree. i think these are questions we should all ask, but we should first get to the bottom.

some of the reporting has seemed to go a little faster than the facts. >> understood. neera, thank you very much. and more to come on the revelations about the clinton's private e-mail system coming up. what does it all mean for her likely presidential campaign? and later, the ferguson police department and civil rights. the justice department's report on an alleged pattern of racial bias. that coming up next here on msnbc. sunday dinners at my house... it's a full day for me, and i love it. but when i started having back pain

my sister had to come help. i don't like asking for help. i took tylenol but i had to take six pills to get through the day. so my daughter brought over some aleve. it's just two pills, all day! and now, i'm back! aleve. two pills. all day strong, all day long. and now introducing aleve pm for a better am. [alarms blaring] ohhhhh... whoa whoa whoa! who's responsible for this?!? if something goes wrong, you find a scapegoat. ...rick. it's what you do. ahhhhhhhh! what'd you say? uh-oh! kelly! if you want to save fifteen percent or more on car insurance, you switch to geico. it's what you do. rick. don't walk away from me. ahhhhhhhh! time to get up! a woman's body changes over 500 times a day which can cause odor. so, secret clinical strength tracked christie bruce's ups and downs for a day.

oh no, just one each now. mommy. dad's home i'm going to work now. secret clinical strength has adapts + responds technology tm for customized protection that adapts to your body. so no matter what's going on inside... you can be fearless outside.

and more on hillary clinton's private e-mail account. during her years as secretary of state, it is a political issue today. "the new york times" continued its reporting, saying that the state department was not able to provide e-mails to congressional benghazi investigators because the e-mails were held on a private server not in the government's official archives. the ap has also detailed elaborate protections for clinton's e-mails run on an internet service registered at the clintons' home back when she

was still secretary of state. she had discussed her technical know-how during an interview with savannah guthrie in 2011. >> you mentioned technology. i have to wonder, do you -- how many people have your personal e-mail address? do you use your blackberry a lot? do you like technology? >> i do. >> are you good at it? >> i'm okay for someone of my generation. but no i have a lot of security restraints on what i can and can't do. but i do try to stay in touch as much as possible and electronically is by far the easiest way to do that. >> are you a blackberry addict? >> i'm an aficionado. not sure about the addict part. >> joining me now for our daily fix, chris cillizza and jonathan capehart. there's been a lot of criticism back and forth when these laws

took effect. is there a political effect here as she prepares to roll out her campaign in april? >> so i'm 100% prepared to let people debate the legal implications here and was the flaw place, it was not was something violated. i believe the original story said it may have been a violation. that said, i'm not really prepared to debate people on the political implications, which seem to me it just reinforces a lot of things that people who might not be favorably inclined to the clintons, maybe they've come around in the last decade or so reminds them of things they don't like. the secrecy, the traditional rules that most people use aren't for them. she's the first person to exclusively use an e-mail -- a private e-mail server. the fact it was set up at their home, what are the security concerns that raises? disclosure and transparency there are just many questions here. i'm not saying that there's any

fire where all that smoke is. i don't know the answer to that. i do know that lots and lots of smoke can be dangerous in politics and can be dangerous to her. >> and we should point out that jeb bush also when he was governor had his own personal server. he had his e-mails run by something called jeb@jeb.org. it was housed in the state office building when he was governor. >> this story reminds me of something i have to keep in mind for myself as a reporter. whether you're for the clintons or against the clintons we all view them through sort of a fun house mirror. we could be told the flat-out god's honest truth, but because we look at them through this warped fun house mirror we can't believe what we're seeing. and right now, i agree with chris 100%. the legal part of this story, i'll leave it to others to explain. but politically speaking the former secretary and her team her impending campaign they have a problem here because as

chris said it reinforces this narrative that the clintons are secretive, that the clintons believe that the rules do not apply to them and for folks who haven't come around and will never come around, this story is just proof of why they don't like them. for those who are on the fence, as chris said it could give them pause. and it's imperative -- i heard you say on "morning joe" this morning that the time lag it took for clinton's team to respond to a story that was on the web from the night hours before, it's a problem. she's got to get that under control, if this smoke that chris and i are talking about doesn't become a raging inferno. >> let's talk about another raging inferno, which is ben carson and what he said to chris cuomo about homosexuality. let's play that. >> what if people of a state vote for a law 100-0 that winds up infringing on the rights of a minority, like what happened with slavery, like what people argue is happening now with

people who are gay? >> you can't say because it happened that time it's the same situation. people have no control over their race for instance. >> you think they have control over their sexuality? >> absolutely. >> you think being gay is a choice? >> absolutely. >> why do you say that? >> because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight and when they come out, they're gay. so did something happen while they were in there? ask yourself that question. >> jonathan i don't know where to start. >> here i'll do it. i'll speak for myself. gifted hands has a deranged mind. the idea he would equate someone being gay, which is not a choice by the way, to something that happens to someone when they go into prison straight and come out gay, he's invoking the violence of prison rape to try to explain why someone like myself, the way god made me is gay. this person, ben carson should not be never should be

considered a viable candidate for any party's presidential nomination and he certainly shouldn't be president of the united states. you cannot talk about anyone like that and clearly i'm not saying that dr. ben carson is not a smart man. clearly he's a neurosurgeon he's world renowned. in the world of neurosurgery, he deserves to be on the platform and pedestal he has. but in the world of politics he doesn't deserve the platform or the stature that's being afforded to him by the republican party. >> thank you, jonathan. thanks very much. >> thanks andrea. >> and we have breaking news from the justice department where we have learned that former ferguson missouri policeman darren wilson will not be charged in the death of unarmed teenager michael brown. this has to do with the federal civil rights charges. wilson has already been cleared of criminal charges. more on this breaking story with the naacp legal defense and educational fund coming up after a break.

building aircraft, the likes of which the world has never seen. this is what we do. ♪ that's the value of performance. northrop grumman. next. ♪♪ expected wait time: 55 minutes. your call is important to us. thank you for your patience. waiter! vo: in the nation, we know how it feels when you aren't treated like a priority. we do things differently. we'll take care of it. vo: we put members first... join the nation. thank you. ♪ nationwide is on your side ♪ (vo) maggie wasn't thrilled when ben and i got married. i knew it'd take some time.

and her sensitive stomach didn't make things easier. it was hard to know why... the move...her food...? so we tried purina cat chow gentle... ...because it's specially formulated for easy digestion. she's loved it ever since. and as for her and ben... ...she's coming around. purina cat chow gentle. one hundred percent complete and balanced for everyday feeding of adult cats. curling up in bed with a favorite book is nice. but i think women would rather curl up with their favorite man. but here's the thing: about half of men over 40 have some degree of erectile dysfunction. well, viagra helps guys with ed get and keep an erection. and remember, you only take it when you need it. ask your doctor if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take viagra if you take nitrates for chest pain; it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. side effects include headache, flushing, upset stomach and abnormal vision. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help

for an erection lasting more than four hours. stop taking viagra and call your doctor right away if you experience a sudden decrease or loss in vision or hearing. ask your doctor about viagra. introducing preferred rewards from bank of america the new banking rewards program that rewards our customers, every day. you'll get things like rewards bonuses on credit cards... extra interest on a savings account... preferred pricing on merrill edge online trades and more... across your banking and investing get used to getting more. that's the power of more rewarding connections. that's preferred rewards from bank of america. ♪ ♪ ♪ "here i am. rock you like a hurricane." ♪ fiber one now makes cookies. find them in the cookie aisle.

and to recap the breaking news from the justice department where we've learned former ferguson, missouri, police officer darren wilson will not be charged in the death of unarmed teenager michael brown. this has to do with the federal civil rights charges. wilson has already been cleared of any criminal charges. attorney general eric holder is going to be announcing the results of a justice department investigation also that found on a separate subject systematic discrimination against the poor and minorities by the ferguson police. the investigation was launched after the shooting of michael brown, resulting in his death. pete williams is on the phone joining us now. pete, first of all, the darren wilson investigation now closed. >> yes, and there's no surprise here andrea. we've known for months this is what the justice department's conclusion was going to be. you may recall that last week eric holder told us he thought the federal civil rights statute needs to be changed. what the justice department says

here is there's no manslaughter law like there is in the states. the federal law would require the government to prove that darren wilson used unreasonable force when he shot michael brown and that he did so on purpose. in other words believing that it was wrong and against the law to do so. they say after review of the evidence, they can't find evidence to show that he violated the federal law. so therefore, they've closed out the case and informed the family. so there's no real surprise here because of that very high standard in the federal law. that's the only option the government could have used is to charge him with violating the federal civil rights law and it wasn't a fit, they say. the other interesting thing here, this is very unusual, they've released the 80-page internal memo about why this is the right decision. they don't normally do that but they talk about dna, blood evidence ballistics. it's very thorough. they say they want people to understand why they've reached this conclusion and that's why they've done this. >> pete williams a busy day on

your beat. thank you. and i'm joined now by the associate director council at the naacp legal defense and educational fund to talk about the broader issue of all of this. first of all, the justice department, as pete say, has released the full report the findings that show first of all that darren wilson should not be charged with a civil rights violation, but secondly, the justice department has released this report saying or is going to at 3:00 this afternoon saying there has been systematic discrimination by the ferguson police. is that the more important issue now? fixing this police force. >> well yes. this is real vindication for all of those who have protested over the past several months following the killing of michael brown. civil rights leaders, the residents of ferguson protesters from across the country and around the world. this is an absolute validation of their outrage. and this is the right finding in this case. we see from what we've learned

about this report that there was rampant and rife racism within that department, and it resulted in a finding by the department of justice that there's a pattern and practice of such conduct that potentially violates criminal and -- violates constitutional rights. >> in the findings in this report, it says 88% of the cases where police use force from 2012 to 2014 the suspect was african-american. also, that 93% of the people arrested during that two-year period were black. so what is the remedy here? >> well we really need to put those statistics you mentioned in context. african-americans constitute just 67% of the population of ferguson. as you said, they were 88% of the stops. they were 90% of the citations. they were 93% of the arrests in ferguson. so we see a real focus and

criminalization of that community that's simply unwarranted by their representation in the population. so this judgment that there was a pattern and practice of discrimination by the police department is really where we're going to see the meat to call for the sort of reforms we need to see not only in ferguson but in other police departments in the surrounding areas and potentially across the country. it's not uncommon for the department of justice after finding that there's a pattern and practice of discriminatory conduct in this way to initiate negotiations with the law enforcement department, and if they are unwilling to bring a suit charging them and pursuing an actually finding in the court. >> i want to play from ron allen's report the story of one woman, allison nelson, her experience with the ferguson police. let's watch. >> officials also say the report accuses police of targeting black and poor drivers to raise revenue. 85% of motorists stopped were

black. allison nelson says she was stopped at least five times, first for a cracked windshield then when she couldn't pay the fine, court fees piled up. then an arrest warrant. eventually, she was stopped and jailed. nelson says her dream job is to join the navy but recruiters say no until she clears up her problems with the courts. >> it's stressing me out because i can't get to -- i can't start my career because of these little tickets. >> briefly, will anything change now that the justice department is going to recognize this problem? >> i really hope so. i mean, to really appreciate the enormity of the chargings against the municipal court system, we have to understand that not only was the department of justice investigating the police department but also the municipal court system. in 2013 alone, the municipal court system raised $2.6 million on these types of fines. on traffic fines, on stops where

you fine individuals for minor offenses. and that ultimately resulted in subsidizing 21% of the city's budget. that is exploitation of the worst kind. not only because it's harming and targeting the most marginalized in the ferguson community, those who are poor those who are working class and are struggling but also because it's being perpetuated by the police and the justice system. those institutions in which we should have the highest faith. >> janai nelson, thank you so much, from the naacp legal defense fund. we'll be right back. it's a fact. kind of like shopping hungry equals overshopping. 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

and let's go right to the white house for the briefing from josh earnest. he's talking about ferguson. >> -- and that is a good thing for the country. that doesn't change the fact that there was a tragedy that occurred in ferguson. i think people who, even if they have pretty divergent views of what took place, would acknowledge that, you know, the taking of this young life was a

tragedy. >> if i could switch over to the topic of former secretary of state hillary clinton's e-mails, some of my colleagues at ap are reporting that secretary clinton not only used a private e-mail account but also was operating her own server that was registered to her home. i'm wondering if the white house thinks that is appropriate for senior-level administration officials to be doing. >> again, this is -- what we have said about senior officials or frankly even officials at a middle or lower level who use their personal e-mail to conduct official business that they -- that there's a responsibility associated with that. it's important to ensure that when official business is conducted on personal e-mail that those records are properly maintained and preserved. the easiest way to do that is to simply take that personal e-mail and forward it to your official e-mail so it can properly be

preserved with the rest of your correspondence. there are also procedures set up by some departments where individuals can essentially print out personal e-mails that relate to the conduct of official government business and send them to the state department and ensure they are properly maintained and preserved in that way. and again, it's important that these e-mails are properly maintained and preserved so they can be used to respond to legitimate inquiries from the public, legitimate inquiries from congress or even legitimate inquiries from historians down the line. i understand that hundreds of these documents have been produced to congress in conjunction with a legitimate congressional inquiry. and that is again, the way that this process is supposed to work. >> but can you understand the concern that if a cabinet-level official is not only using a private e-mail account but is controlling their own -- running their own server that there

really is no independent way to verify that they have turned over all of the e-mails that involve official business. >> well, all i can say is that this is -- that the guidelines that we have laid out are consistent with the law that the president signed into law at the end of last year which is to establish clear guidelines for how we can ensure that work that's done on a personal e-mail account is properly preserved and maintained. now, this is also why the guidance that we have given to administration staffers is that they should just save themselves the extra step and do their official government business on their official government e-mail account. that is the path that the vast majority of administration staffers use. i put myself in that category. if there are occasions in which there happens to be an e-mail exchange on one's personal e-mail account that is relevant to their official responsibilities, it's just important for them to remember

to forward that e-mail to their official government account so it can be properly preserved and maintained. >> is there anything happening either at the white house or at the state department to go back and look at whether there were any security issues that came up with secretary clinton using a private e-mail or private e-mail server? >> nothing like that that i'm aware of. roberta? >> one of the justices this morning suggested that the court could give states time to prepare for the impact if it decided to rule against the government in the case. i'm just wondering if you have any response to that? >> hi everybody. i'm thomas roberts here at msnbc headquarters in new york. there we have white house press secretary josh earnest in the briefing room. he was talking about the hillary clinton e-mail controversy. also talking about the department of justice report on ferguson, which is our top story today on msnbc live because it was just moments ago the justice department announced that no charges will be filed against officer darren wilson in the