cus in life is what you're just talking about there. that was a really important segment. >> answering that poll is cheap, right? it's what comes after it that costs. >> just the -- but to see the change over time, and to connect it to what's really going on, it affects the way people think about these things. it is not abstract stuff. it's concrete and really important. you just did a great job with that. >> thank you. >> thank you for staying with us for the next hour. all right. this is also a little bit about the media. as a person who works in cable news, i have to tell you this is a little awkward to acknowledge, but it is true, and sometimes it ends up being important. that sometimes cable news really does go a bit wobbly. we lose our way a little bit. we fail on what we are supposed to do. which in the broadest possible terms is that we're supposed to provide useful and accurate information about the news to the american people. right? it's not a complicated mission.

but sometimes things do go wobbly in our business. and right now, the wobbliest bit is this guy. the undisputed king of cable news. who nevertheless is having a hard time getting ahead of multiple instances over multiple years where he has described news stories and his role in news stories in ways that are not, how do you say, true. not true. started with reporting from david corn, documented how bill o'reilly at the fox news channel has described himself repeatedly as having been a reporter in the falklands war, having reported from a war zone, having reported from a combat situation in that war, when in fact he was more than 1,000 miles away from the actual fighting in the falklands war. in true fact, the hairiest thing bill o'reilly ever covered during the falklands war, is a protest about the war, not the war itself.

>> i was in a situation one time in a war zone in argentina, in the falklands. >> no, he wasn't. he was never in a war zone in argentina in the falklands. it just never happened. but the fox news channel has still not corrected that, or commented on those claims at all, except to express the fox news channel's unqualified support for mr. o'reilly as their star anchor. now, fox news has so far issued two corrections, or clarifications for a couple of other stories where mr. o'reilly has been called out in a book he published two years ago. he wrote this, i've seen irish terrorists kill and maim their fellow citizens in belfast. fox news did later issue a correction about that to the "washington post" explaining that actually mr. o'reilly was not an eyewitness to any bombings or injuries in northern ireland. what they say he meant when he

said he saw those things, is that actually he once saw pictures of those things. oh, okay. mr. o'reilly has also said on the fox news channel, he has said, i was in el salvador and saw nuns get shot in the back of the head. he did not see nuns get shot in the back of the head in el salvador. fox news put out a statement he did not actually see nuns get shot, actually what he saw was pictures of that. so what fox news channel and mr. o'reilly have not touched on at all so far, and this is becoming sort of a more and more pregnant pause as we wait for some comment from them on this, but they haven't touched at all thus far on for which there appears to be a now plausible, innocent explanation for what mr. o'reilly said. >> now, i reported on this guy when i was working at wfaa tv in dallas. he taught at bishop college in dallas.

i can put that together. now, i chased the shield to florida, and i was about to knock on the door where he was, his daughter's house and he blew his brains out with a shotgun. >> oh, my goodness. >> oh, my goodness, really? no, not really. although mr. o'reilly has told this story in that way many times, including on the fox news channel, and in print. it appears not to have happened. he keeps saying it, though. this is from his book "killing kennedy." >> in march of 1977 a young television reporter at wfaa in kennedy assassination. he sought out an interview with the college professor who had befriended the oswalds in 1962. the reporter traced george demournshield to florida, and traveled there to confront him. as the dallas reporter traveled to the daughter's home, he heard the shotgun blast that marked the suicide of the russian. assuring that his relationship with lee harvey oswald would

never be fully understood. that reporter's name is bill o'reilly. >> okay, that part is true. that reporter's name is bill o'reilly. if by what you mean is, that reporter is the guy speaking there. but the rest of it, where this dallas reporter has gone to florida to find this guy, and he knocks on the door of the guy's house in florida, and while he's knocking on the door, he hears the gunshot that indicates the man inside that house has just killed himself? that apparently did not happen. cnn has now published this recording of mr. o'reilly calling a source in florida the day that that man killed himself in florida. mr. o'reilly was working as a reporter in texas at the time. in this call here he expresses shock that this guy has killed himself. he said he's going to go to florida the next day to start looking into it. now that he's heard from another state that the guy is dead. >> he's going to get a car

tomorrow. i'm coming down there tomorrow. i'm coming to florida. >> he's going to get a car tomorrow. i'm coming down there tomorrow. i'm coming to florida. he's going to go to florida the next day after the guy killed himself, because he's intrigued by this news. mr. o'reilly does not seem to have been standing on the porch listening to the gunshots ring out as the guy killed himself. i don't know if the porch is

long enough to extend from the house in florida all the way into texas where bill o'reilly was working as a dallas reporter. it just does not seem to have happened the way he has repeatedly explained that it did. no. mr. o'reilly, the star anchor of the fox news channel, the king of cable news, he has made this claim on the fox news channel about being there in person when this guy killed himself in florida. hearing the shot as he stood at the front door. that claim does not appear to be true. contested not only by mr. o'reilly on words on this tape, but his co-workers who said he was in texas at the time this suicide happened. the fox news channel has not corrected on this or commented on it whatsoever. we asked if they would give us any comment on the substance of these allegations. in what was a very unexpected and also sort of i have to say amusing development, they didn't

-- we asked them for comment on the substance of the allegation. what they sent us was a lot of information about how great bill o'reilly's ratings are. your ratings are great! i've seen your ratings shoot my ratings right in the head. well, i've seen pictures of that, i should say. but the fox news channel now has a problem, right? they have a problem -- even on a business level, a media level with the face of their network i their flagship anchor having all this stuff trailing him around with no plausible explanation for what exactly he said and did and why they haven't tried to at least fix it. the network has not retracted any of o'reilly'so vert threats about the real credibility they've got with him right now. so, cable news, as an institution, sometimes does get into a pickle like this.

and it tends to get the most attention when it is a personnel issue, like it is right now with mr. o'reilly, who again indisputably has very good ratings, and is the king of cable news. so sometimes you get into a pickle with a personnel issue like they've got right now which continues to seem not just untenable, but increasingly untenable for the outfit that is the biggest deal in this whole business. sometimes it's personnel issues. sometimes, though, when cable news gets wobbly, it's not on a personnel issue, it's on the substance. it's because of mistakes. and mistakes do happen. we had to do a correction last week on this show on a water dispute in south carolina. we reported it long, we corrected it on the air. sometimes you get stuff wrong, it's unfortunate, but you then get it right. you may remember cnn reported for close to an hour that the suspect in boston was in custody for the boston marathon bombing when in fact nobody was in custody at that time. after the "charlie hebdo" attacks in paris, there were mistaken reports one person was

killed and one person was apprehended. neither was true at the time those reports were broadcast on our air. mistakes happen. mistakes happen in basic reporting, particularly if there's a risk in breaking news reporting. but the most famous, the big one, the most famous huge recent screw-up in cable news reporting, the one that will be in the textbooks if it isn't already, is how some cable news outlets blew it on reporting on a really important supreme court case. a supreme court case in 2012 that could have struck down obamacare.

>> that was conservative ohio congresswoman jean schmitt, when everybody was waiting for the ruling to be announced, congresswoman schmitt was talking to somebody on the phone who apparently was looking at either fox news or cnn, both of which at that moment were incorrectly reporting that the supreme court has struck down obamacare. >> oh, boy. >> we have breaking news here on the fox news channel. the individual mandate has been ruled unconstitutional. >> no. no, it hasn't. not everybody got it wrong. some people got it right. people who did get it wrong eventually figured out that they were wrong, and eventually corrected their stories. but the initial breaking news, everybody on the edge of their seats reporting on that huge supreme court decision on health care, the initial reporting was confused, also known as wrong,

also known as the opposite of true. that huge high stakes reading comprehension failure live on tv was one of two big things that went wrong in the media. particularly in the cable news media, the last time our whole national health care system was on the chopping block at the united states supreme court, and the country looked to us, looked to the media, looked to cable news to explain what was going on. there were two huge failures in that story. the first failure was not understanding what the ruling was and reporting it wrong for a really long time. the second failure was what the media in that story, on that case, did to this guy. >> most surprising to me, perhaps, donald verrilli, the solicitor general, did a simply awful job of defending the law. he was nervous. he was not well spoken. the argument got off to a very bad start for the

administration. and it was really the liberal justices who carried the argument much more than the lawyer. >> that's cnn's very influential esteemed legal analyst jeffrey toobin on the day the obamacare lawsuit was argued at the supreme court in 2012. getting on cable news and blaming the lawyer from the obama administration who argued the case, blaming solicitor general donald verrilli essentially for blowing it, and blowing it in epic fashion. >> this was a train wreck for the obama administration. this law looks like it's going to be struck down. i'm telling you, all of the predictions, including mine, that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong. >> after the oral arguments in that case in 2012, the media take on that case was that obamacare was definitely doomed. and it was doomed specifically because don verilli was terrible. he totally blew it.

he could have made a good argument, but he made a terrible argument. that was like the consensus left, right and center media deal. the last time the supreme court heard a big, big case on obamacare. that, like much of the reporting on the eventual decision, was totally wrong. not only did don verrilli's side win that case, the arguments that he made at oral arguments at the supreme court that day, when all the media was trashing how poorly he did, the arguments that he made apparently were very specifically and somewhat spectacularly persuasive. chief justice john roberts wrote the pin yo that saved obamacare. don verrilli was right and the media that trashed him was wrong. now with deep humility, at least i hope with deep humility, we are once again covering a

situation in which the entire american health care system has gone on the chopping block again, at the united states supreme court. and once again, today, it was the same guy making the case for the administration in the court and making that case today against the same guy he argued against the last time. plaintiffs' lawyers and defendant's lawyers the same as in the 2012 case. they had their oral arguments today. probably decided by the justices in june. anybody who did not learn the lessons of last time, anybody who heard about the oral arguments, sat in on the oral arguments today, tells you on the basis of that they know how the case will go, those folks might be able to send you a nice souvenir from their time in the falklands. i can tell you this, the fate of the american health care system really does rest on how these nine justices are going to rule in this case. millions of americans could be thrown off their health care in

one feld swoop if the justices decide the way the plaintiffs want them to, and the administration loses the case. i can tell you that the conservative justices who do seem inclyde to destroy obamacare, they got a laugh apparently from the courtroom today when one of them explained why it wouldn't be so bad if they destroyed obamacare. quoting from the "washington post" today, who had a reporter there in the courtroom for the oral arguments. justice antonin scalia would not sit idly by in a crisis. don verrilli said, well, this congress, your honor? his comment drew laughter in the chamber and a smile from nancy pelosi who was sitting in the front row. i can also tell you after

today's oral arguments, a lot of people are openly wondering if the swing vote might not be justice roberts but anthony kennedy. at one point during the oral arguments today, justice kennedy asked a question in which he seemed very worried about the prospect of the supreme court effectively destroying the health care system in more than three dozen states with this one ruling. he said to the plaintiffs' attorneys today, quote, there is a serious constitutional problem if we adopt your argument. this is my favorite data point from the whole day today. after justice kennedy said that, in the oral arguments on this case, look what happened in the outside world. look at the headline here. hello? do we have it? oh, come on. hospital stocks surge. come on, hospitals had argued -- all right. hospitals argued they would suffer significant harm by striking down obamacare in this case. when justice kennedy said he saw constitutional issues, hospital stocks went through the roof. hospitals rose more than all other stocks on the s&p 500 index. so, yeah, we must be humble at times like this. we cannot report things that we do not know. we cannot predict things -- thank you very much, there's the headline. we have to be humble about things like that, right? we have to be humble in terms of

predicting what might happen. we have to be humble in terms of predicting -- particularly when it comes to the supreme court. especially given the history of the media screwing things up around the supreme court and this particular law. with that enforced humility about stories like this, and with the hugely high stakes in this case today, what it means for everybody in this country, how did it go today, and what does dolly think is going to happen here? joining us now is the legal correspondent for swing magazine. thanks for being here. >> i am humbled. i will say nothing but i'm humbled. you've got me. >> you have not been a big offender in terms of predicting stuff for the eventual results of cases based on the oral arguments. that said, i count on you to tell me what was interesting, compelling, potentially predictive about the discussion today in court? what do you think was important? >> you know, maybe i would back up and say, i think when we get

it wrong about oral argument, rachel, it's usually because we see two good advocates, and guess from the justices' questions what's going on. that's when we get it wrong. i think advocates will tell you that you can't win a case at the supreme court, but you can really lose one if you're terrible. that's where oral argument can be predictive. nobody lost today. we had two really good oral advocates putting on good presentations. so hard to predict based on that. i think the moment you flagged there, when justice kennedy, who was not in play in the last obamacare case, in 2012, he hated this act. and today when he started raising those states' rights concerns, started to say he had serious constitutional worries, that's when all the progressives in the room went, huh? maybe we got him. >> the reason it was striking to me, and from the accounts that i read today about how the oral arguments went, what was striking to me is it seems like it became relevant to the

reasoning to the justices, that if they rule against obamacare, it would have a huge material effect in the country. just the scope of the effect of what they might do, seemed to be weighing on their decision and the way they were talking about the rule of law in this case. >> what was so interesting is on the one hand you had the four liberal justices just coming out pummeling michael carvin who represented the petitioners here. no surprise there were four people who really do think there are dire, and i think the word they used is catastrophic consequences. but this is important. both justices antonin scalia and anthony scalia, both conceded that there would be huge consequences, both used the word disastrous consequences, catastrophic consequences. they just really had these ideas about fixes. so as you said, justice scalia was like, congress will fix it. justice alito said the states

will go ahead and create state exchanges, or we could just push the pause buttton until they do. nobody seemed to dispute this was going to have unbelievable consequences on the ground. the only real question was, sort of getting out of the reading the statute, which is what we're supposed to be doing, is how easy it is to fix it. >> in terms of the obama administration and political strategy around this, a lot of people are talking about the obama administration not coming up with a plan b, if the supreme court strikes down this law, if they rule the way the conservative justices seem inclined here, the obama administration said we have no contingency in place. we don't expect that to happen. it would be bad law and we're not doing it. essentially, it's been described that we're flying without a net. if this does come crashing down as policy, we're going to crash. there's not going to be anything that cushions it. does that political strategy translate to the legal reasoning? >> well, i've certainly heard that same argument made that it

was to the obama administration's advantage not to be prepared. you have arguments like today how we'll mitigate this catastrophe. but i think they would say, look, we don't have to have a plan "b" if you take a wrecking ball to our law that has been passed and signed off on once. you fix it. their answer would probably be you've had ample opportunity to come up with a plan "b" on the other side and we're not seeing it. >> dolly, thanks for being here tonight. i was so looking forward to talking to you about this. >> thanks, rachel. today has been a very big news day. you might have noticed we're not in washington, d.c. today. i said we would be. we're not. charmin ultra strong is 4 times stronger. and you can use up to 4x less. charmin ultra strong. heroes charge! ♪ (explosion) ♪

(explosion) ♪ (explosion) ♪ lead your heroes in the hit mobile game! download heroes charge now! if you can clear a table without lifting a finger... you may be muddling through allergies. try zyrtec® for powerful allergy relief. and zyrtec® is different than claritin. because it starts working faster on the first day you take it. zyrtec®. muddle no more™.

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. we're working right now on a troubling breaking news report out of south korea. the u.s. ambassador to south korea was attacked tonight. look at this picture. he was slashed, he was hurt. attacked by an armed attacker in seoul. we're told his injuries are not life-threatening. but the ambassador has been hurt and is being treated in a

hospital right now. this is breaking news. we've got details still coming in. we're about to go to a live report from seoul right after this.

breaking news tonight out of south korea. the u.s. ambassador of south korea, mark lippert, 42 years old, has been attacked. the assault happened a few hours ago. so evening time here on the east coast in the u.s. but it's early morning in seoul. ambassador lippert was assaulted when giving a speech at a

breakfast in seoul. he was slashed on or near his face with some kind of blade, possibly a razor. the suspect in the attack was arrested. he was apparently tackled by audience members who were attending mr. lippert's speech after he attacked the ambassador. media in south korea are reporting that the suspected attacker is an activist against u.s.-south korean military cooperation. he may also be some sort of activist in the unification of south korea and north korea. we do not have a lot of detail on that at this point. after this troubling attack, we're told tonight ambassador mark lippert was rushed to a local hospital. his injuries are said to be nonlife-threatening. joining us now live from seoul is june yun, asia's seoul correspondent. >> reporter: that's right. mark lippert was injured this morning by an assailant with a razor knife. sustaining injuries to his face and wrist. this happened at 7:40 a.m. local korea time on his way to his

morning lecture. this happened while he was walking to the building, when the attack took place. witnesses from the scene are saying that the suspect came from behind and started assaulting him. the audience members stopped the attack, and the police immediately arrested the suspect at the scene. the suspect has been identified as 55-year-old mao kim jong. this suspect actually has a criminal record for a similar crime from five years ago. in july 2010, the suspect threw two pieces of concrete at a japanese envoy to seoul as well. at this time, kim received a suspended two-year jail sentence for this crime. something that we're seeing in the local press is that he published a book last year in which he describes the details of his assault on the japanese envoy as well. in terms of motive, questioning

is still ongoing under police custody, but so far what we have from the police is that the assailant is said to have said he was opposing -- opposed to the joint u.s.-south korea military drills going on now. the full military drills that have started this monday. and he is said to have shouted anti-war statements right before he was pushed into the police car. that's all we have right now. back to you. >> june, thank you very much for that live report from cnbc asia in seoul. summarizing that new information we just got from june, the suspect in this case, 55-year-old male with a criminal record, just explained there, in july 2010, the same man was found guilty of having attacked a japanese envoy to seoul, attacking in that case using chunks of concrete. he was given a suspended jail sentence. in terms of his motives, june described that he may have expressed objections to joint military operations between the united states and seoul, including joint military

exercises that are happening right now. but the attack happened with a razor knife is the description that we're getting, while the u.s. ambassador was walking to this event to give a speech at a breakfast in seoul. local time thursday morning with the time difference, that's tonight on the east coast, tomorrow in seoul. we'll let you know as we learn more. but in terms of the ambassador's health right now, he is injured. but his injuries are said to be nonlife-threatening. he's being treated in a local hospital.

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. we waited for a really long time last night for hillary clinton's speech in washington.

we were waiting on that speech last night because, well, first of all, this is only the second time this year that secretary clinton has made public political remarks. so we want to hear what she has to say, since apparently she's running for president. but secondly, we were waiting on these remarks last night because these would be the first public remarks since the article in "the new york times," the fact she's not using a personal e-mail address, but own server keeping her e-mails close to the vest. we waited and waited and waited last night for these remarks. she was supposed to start talking at 9:00 eastern, but she didn't start talking until after our show was over. when she started talking, she did not say anything about the e-mail controversy. even as an aside. turns out she had someone else lined up to do the talking. sort of a talk it godzilla. that story is coming up.

[ r&b slow jam playing ] ♪ yeah, girl ♪ ♪ you know, i've been thinking about us ♪ ♪ and, uh, i just can't fight it anymore ♪ ♪ it's bundle time ♪ ♪ bundle ♪ ♪ mm, feel those savings, baby ♪ and that's how a home and auto bundle is made. better he learns it here than on the streets. the miracle of bundling -- now, that's progressive.

did you already know as far as winters go, 2015 has hard? this is how i spend winter fishing for fish on open water.

this winter is so terrible, i had to learn how to do this instead. i'm terrible at it. there is cool gear and stuff for ice fishing, but honestly it's only because this winter is so stormy and cold and icy that i had to try to learn to do this. well, now tonight, more on the way. as many as 100 million americans, a third of the country, is in the path of this latest giant winter storm that started this morning in texas, and is very slowly moving eastward, and upward as we speak. tomorrow is going to be an absolute nightmare for travel in most of the country. and the state of new jersey is

one of the states they're expecting maybe a foot of snow in parts of the state from this new storm. governor chris christie said today that basically he's over it. in terms of the weather. he told a town hall meeting in new jersey today that even his kids are blaming him for the bad weather in new jersey. >> i have to tell you the truth, this is my sixth year as governor, i am so over this weather. i was working out this morning, and my son patrick, who's on spring break this week, came in and said to me, dad, the weather has been so bad since you've been governor. it's like the last thing i'm going to be blamed for. that's it. i'm taking the hit on that, too, from my own kid, my fault that the weather is so bad. >> don't blame me for the bad weather. but apparently governor christie has a plan for the bad weather. because next year he's planning on it definitely not being that bad at all. governor christie just announced a new budget for the state of new jersey in which he says he will cut in half next year the funding for snow removal in the state. yeah, because maybe next year it will be nice this time of year. half. he's cutting the plow budget by

half. governor christie has been preparing, not subtly, for a run for the white house. his case to republicans nationwide why they should nominate him to be their presidential nominee is about how he's convinced a blue state like new jersey to twice elect him as governor. right now back home in nnl he's dealing with the lowest approval ratings of his tenure. one involves the state's pension program. a judge ordered him to pay back the state almost $1.6 billion for that pension money. he's also facing brand-new heat about a lawsuit, 11 years in the making, between the state of new jersey and exxon mobil. the state sued exxon mobil in 2004 for damages and environmental cleanup at two oil refineries in northern new jersey. the lawsuit found that the pollution and cop tam nation of the sites was really extensive. it took place over decades. there are millions of gallons of oils and other toxic contaminants, literally tons and tons of dumped toxic waste at these sites which encompass more than 1,500 acres. the courts have already found that exxon was liable for the damage done.

now it's just a matter of how much they're going to have to pay. the state of new jersey asked in the suit for $8.9 billion. $8.9 billion. but then "the new york times" reported last week that the christie administration moved to settle the case for only $250 million. that's like 3% of what the state has been asking for in this lawsuit for more than a decade. what's going on here? when we first reported on this story last week, i wondered out loud on the air, whether this is a normal thing for a big lawsuit like this, for the state to drop its demands to exxon from $8.9 billion down to a quarter of 1 billion. is that a turn of events in the legal world? or is that just as pitiful as it sounds? it turns out a lot of people in new jersey think it is pitiful and sketchy. not only are the environmental groups raising hell about this, but the star ledger, christie must come clean in exxon oil settlement.

ex son mobil settlement must be blocked. $250 million settlement with exxon mobil defies reason. in addition to the general sense of anger in the state about this still inexplicable deal, there's also now a lot of consternation about a clause in the state budget this year that would appear to allow governor christie to divert most of the money won in a settlement like this to pay for environmental cleanup. instead the money could be directed directly into the state's general fund which could be used for anything the governor wants, like say plugging the gaping hole in the budget which is an uncomfortable thing if you're running for president. now, though, the state legislature has decided to intervene. they simply announced they will have a hearing this month on the questionable settlement deal. in the state senate, the

president and longtime state senator said they will take legal action to block this settlement in the courts. state senator saying, i grew up in the bay way section of elizabeth, new jersey, where this exxon site is. it smelled there. it smelled bad. but this smells even worse. joining us now is new jersey state senator raymond leffney. you filed that you guys are going to intervene. you filed a public records request to try to figure out what's behind the settlement? >> we want to find out who engineered this. was it the attorney general's office or someone in the governor's office. these are settlements that should be recommended by lifetime career employees. they were working on this case for 11 years. all of a sudden $8.9 billion gets shrunken down to $250 million? yes, that smells. >> do you feel like you know what happened here, or you know

where to look to find out? honestly, we don't know if this was a raw deal for the people of new jersey. >> sure we do. >> if they said you have to pay five bucks, getting $250 million out of them will be a great deal. how will we know it was a good deal or bad one? >> we're going to find out what the basis of the deal was. these are economic damages. we're not talking about pain and suffering, emotional distress. these are readily ascertainable numbers. over it billion just for the restoration alone. and there's no liability dispute. strictly liable. exxon has to pay. and they're getting off light. we're not going to let that happen. >> if this is a raw deal as you suggest, one plausible motive seems to be this clause that's in the state budget this year, that says most of the settlement money could go straight into the general fund for the state of new jersey. as far as i understand it, i might be wrong here, that clause goes away in june. which means if you want to basically steal the settlement money instead of cleaning up the

site, you better act fast. >> that's correct. it has to be in the new budget. and we're not going to let this happen again. we let it go once. actually, we tried to expand it and he vetoed it. he got away with it. but not this time. >> so that change in the law for this year, though, was that suggested by the governor's office? >> he put it in the budget, correct. >> did he explain why? >> i don't know. i don't -- he doesn't talk to me. shocking. >> this is not the -- if this happens with the exxon settlement, they take the $50 million to plug the hole in the budget and the site where you grew up doesn't get cleaned up because of it won't be the first time that would happen. they took all the money for the general fund for an environmental cleanup money and it didn't happen. >> this is a lot bigger. not only is the money going to be diverted, but it's a small amount of money. the big issue here for me is $250 million, and not $8 billion? where did that go? and how was that determined? i don't believe it was determined by the attorney

general's office or the ep, i think it came right out of the governor's office. and that's a political decision that is not allowed under our constitution. the attorney general handles these cases, the governor's office should not be interfering. that's what we're going to get down to the bottom of. >> if it is the governor's office, do you have the tools to find out if that's true? >> for sure. if we can't get it from opr, we'll subpoena them. >> raymond lesniak, thanks for explaining it.

0

if hillary clinton got nervous about something, how would you know? i'm not sure it would show. in poker terms, she may not have a tell. today we got a clue about the source of hillary clinton's calm in her latest political storm, and that story is kind of amazing.

that story is just ahead. uth any differently? complete the job with listerine®. kill up to 99 percent of germs. and prevent plaque, early gum disease and bad breath. sfx: ahhh listerine®. power to your mouth™! 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.

back in january, prosecutors recommending felony charges forgiving classified information to his biographer/girlfriend. but yesterday he pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor. no felony, no prison time. and watch this, "the new york times" reporter told us something yesterday why prosecutors might have let david petraeus down so gently in this

case. >> we what we do know is that he's represented by williams and conley, the top law firm in washington. what was going to happen is if this went to trial, it was going to be really ugly. it was going to be a lot of motions filed against the government, it was going to be a tough fight for them. >> a really tough fight. david petraeus said, meet my lawyers from williams and conley. this week, another former high ranking obama official is embroiled in a different kind of scandal. hillary clinton is under fire for using only a private e-mail address when secretary of state, essentially making her the gate keeper of how and whether her communications from her time in office are preserved and made available for the public. well, today, before house republicans sent out subpoenas,

they got a note from hillary clinton's lawyer. his name is david kendall from a law firm called williams and conley. the same firm that represented general petraeus to such great effect in his scandal. house select committee on benghazi, meet hillary clinton's lawyers. want to know a secret? i wasn't always a redhead. you'd never know it though because it's nice'n easy color so natural looking it's clairol's #1 authentic color that's always true to you. so shift a shade and still look like your most amazing you. heroes charge! ♪ (explosion) ♪ (explosion) ♪

(explosion) ♪ lead your heroes in the hit mobile game! download heroes charge now!

during the summer of 2012, one ferguson police officer detained a 32-year-old african-american man who had just finished playing basketball at a park. but with no apparent justification, the officer proceeded to accuse the man of being a pedophile. he prohibited the man from using his cell phone and ordered him to get out of his car for a pat-down search, even though he had no reason to suspect the man was armed. when the man objected, citing his constitutional rights, the police officer drew his service weapon, pointed it at the man's head, and arrested him on eight different counts. now, this arrest caused the man to lose his job. african-americans made up over 90% of those charged with a highly discretionary offense described as, and i quote, "manner of walking along roadway."

manner of walking along roadway. in every case in which ferguson police records recorded the race of a person bit by a police dog, that person was african-american. clearly these findings and others in the report demonstrate although some community perception of michael brown's tragic death may have not been accurate, the widespread perceptions that these were based on were all too real. some of those protesters were right. >> some of those protesters were right. attorney general eric holder today announcing the results of two federal civil rights investigations convened after an unarmed black teenager named michael brown was killed by a ferguson, missouri police officer. and the streets of ferguson erupted in what ended up being sometimes violent protests and sometimes violent police countermeasures. the attorney general announcing

today there will not be federal civil rights charges brought against the officer who killed michael brown. that means neither federal or state charges will be brought against that officer in the killing oh of that young man. but attorney general holder also announced that the justice department reached conclusions in what we called a searing report that the justice department found a pattern of racial bias in the ferguson department and the local courts. between 2012 and 2014, 93% of the arrests in ferguson, missouri were african-americans. 93%. quoting from the report. our investigation indicates that this disproportionate burden on african-americans cannot be explained. black people are twice as likely as white people to have their cars searched, even though black people are less likely to have drugs or contraband in their

cars. and black people apparently make up 100% of the people who ferguson police officers have sicked dogs on over the past two years, as the attorney general noted in his remarks today. every person bit by a police dog in the last two years in ferguson, african-american. this report from the justice department on policing ferguson, missouri frankly is sickening. the justice department says local officials are cooperating and already starting to implement some of the recommendations the justice department has made for them and maybe that will avert a federal law enforcement against ferguson, maybe it won't. but as attorney general, eric holder basically clears his desk at what appears to be the end of his tenure as our nation's first black attorney general. his time spent in ferguson after the killing of michael brown, his time spent there and on the issue of ferguson as attorney general will be in the top line of history of his time in office and of country and how we live now.

that does it for us tonight. we'll see you again tomorrow. now. this does it for us tonight. we'll see you tomorrow. . >> right now on first look new details into the slashing attack on america's ambassador of south korea. a stung admission and graphic testimony on day one of the boston marathon bombing trial. hillary clinton speaks out and bill karen says this will be the last big storm this winter. we sure hope so. find how if he's right. thanks so much for joining us this morning. i'm betty nguyen. developing overnight major questions after a frightening hack and slash assault an our u.s. ambassador to south korea ya. he was walking into the hospital and received