it helps girls who are less fortunate than i am, it helps them to get an education and opportunities and help them succeed in life. >> mo'ne, thank you very much for joining us tonight. i really appreciate you being here. thank you very much. what happened in that cockpit? this is "hardball." ♪ good evening, i'm kris matthews in washington. that's the center of the mystery right now in today's crash over the alps. why were the pilots unable to steer that plane to a safe landing? if it was a pressurization emergency, why didn't they simply descend to a lower alternate tide? why heading into the mountains? 144 passengers were on that flight, traveling from barcelona to germany, when 45 minutes into

the journey, it crashed into a remote area of the french alps. it had been cruising at 38,000 feet at 10:27 a.m. local time. it began a rapid but orderly descent. in less than ten minutes at 10:40 a.m., it descended to an altitude of just 6800 feet before it slammed into a mountain in southern france. no discretion signal was ever sent from the cockpit, but the plane's black box has been recovered and sent to paris, when french aviation officials are reviewing it. french officials tell nbc news we should have answers tomorrow morning. bill neely is near the crash site. let's go to you first. what is it about this that

causes a mystery? why are they heading into the mountains? et cetera, et cetera. >> reporter: good evening, chris. it's a crash that really does have the experts absolutely baffled. the plane apparently flying normally in perfectly good weather that was seal by another air france pilot. he said the weather perfectly, really, that suddenly plummets more than 30,000 feet in ten minutes, unimaginable for those on board. i'm at rescue headquarters. it's nightfall now, the weather has deteriorated slightly. the search has suspended until first light. what we do know are those terrible statistics, 150 on board, of whom 67 at least were german, 45 spanish. there were also turking, a belgian, we believe some british

people on board. 144 passengers in total, as well as though two pilots and four crew. the chief pilot was an experienced man. he had more than ten years' experience. the plane itself, it was aging a little. 24 years old, so certainly the oldest plane in the fleet, but it had been serviced routinely only yesterday. it had a full service two years ago. so there was nothing to suggest there was anything wrong with the plane itself. as you say, it took off from barcelona at 10:00, half an hour later, that moment when everyone relaxes, it's flying at the cruising altitude, but here is the key thing. it was only at that cruising altitude for something like between 1 and 3 minutes when it began what you described as that fairly, but fairly stayedy rapid descent of 3,000 to 4,000 feet every minute until after ten minutes it crashed into ma

mountainside. the scene's there is really terrible. it looks like almost those white specks could be snow. they're not. they're the tiniest pieces of debris from that plane. apparently nothing bigger than a car was found and only a couple rescuers have got up there on their feet so far. if there is a good thing so far about this, is one of the two flight data recorders has found the voice recorder has been found and the priority, of course will be to find the second of those recorders, but it does suggest, chris, that possibly as i think you said, that there could be some answers fairly soon to this mystery, because of course that cockpit voice recorder will not only pick up what the pilots were saying to each other and to the control tower, but also any

ambient sound, anything, for example, a flight attendant coming in and saying there was something untoward or unusual. but as you say, chris, at the moment it's an extraordinary mystery. >> thank you very much, bill neely, who is near the crash site in france. s let me start with my colleague tom costello. the questions have been raised all day about an incapacitation of the pilots. do we know anything about their condition? >> no, we don't. the reason everybody is asking that, why would you only state at 38,000 feet for a minute, and then program a controlled but rapid descent down to 6,000 feet and over that entire period never key your mike, never say to traffic control we have a

problem, mayday, nothing of that order at all. we had an initial, early report in fact there mavis a computer coded message, via the transponder of a distress call, but that turns out to not be the case. it appears there was literally radio silence from this plane all the way down until it hit the mountain. that would therefore suggest to some investigators and some pilots that the crew simply was either so busy dealing with whatever emergency was on their hands that they couldn't talk on the microphone, or they were incapacitated, maybe due to hypoxia or a smoke event? if it was hypoxia, if they had a decompression event and they realized it at 38,000 feet, the normal course of action is don your oxygen masks immediately, telling the people in the badge, your passengers to get the masks on, and you drop down to 10,000 feet and level off, because people can breathe the air at 10,000 feet. why did that not happen? why did they continue to descend? was it because, if they realized they had an emergency, they were

already hypoxic? in other words, not able to think clearly. hypoxia sets in very quickly, at first you don't make rational decisions, as if you're double drunk, if you will, and then you can lose consciousness. this is all in the realm of speculation, but the reason is people are speculating is because of that eight-minute descent, controlled descent, and yet no communication whatsoever, and then flying into a mountain has a lot of people wondering if that's the scenario we're looking at. >> mike real goldfarb, i thought egypt air, this is the world we live in. >> i know the white house said there's no evidence of foul play. >> there's no evidence, period. what do you make of what tom just reported, there was a controlled descent?

it wasn't a dive bomb. >> that's what's puzzling everybody. we don't know to what degree they were incapacitated or where, and in fact if they even had -- knew what was going on? were they spatially disoriented? >> michael kay, your thoughts about this. only a minute now. >> i have to zone in on the protocol that pilots have drummed into them when they're going through training. what i find perplexing is an investigator that the aircraft went to below 10,000, and that would give it a mean speed over the period of around 300 to 400 knots, which is which over eight minutes is around 40 to 50 miles. if you track back 40 to 50 miles from the point of impact that place it is it between marseille and nice, and as soon as you got the airplane under control, you turn it towards the nearest

dwellings airfield and away from high ground. it doesn't seem to have happened. the radar trace continues going on along the projected flight path, which is incredibly perplexing, given as tom has alluded to, there was no radio transmission and now it seems no transponder emergency code, either, which is 7700. >> i hope we get the answer early tomorrow. as always, thank you to all. we'll get back to "hardball" in a moment with more politics the rest of the night. coming up, ted cruz running for president. democrats couldn't be well happier in a weird way, but republicans could cause trouble. plus the u.s. supreme court, that's wisconsin's voters i.d. law stands. does it give republican as edge in the polls? i think so.

the. "wall street journal" reports that israel has been spying on the nuclear talks with iran and has used that information to lobby congress to sink the deal. that's coming up with our great roundtable including bob woodward. and what happens to be the republican strategy to offset democratic change in this is country. this is "hardball," the place for politics.

look who's turning to obamacare for insurance needs? ted chris. -- cruz. he's been on his wife's health insurance through her job at goldman sachs, but she's taking a leave of absence now that he's announced hi presidential campaign, so the cruz family is no alonger covered. now cruz says he'll go on the federal exchange under obamacare and sign up for health care. we'll be right back.

welcome back to "hardball."

he doesn't believe in science, he's tried to derail every -- he conducts hearings like joe mccarthy, and he wants to dismantle the u.s. government. this is it is unsettling realie about ted cruz. i think he's the problem, not the solution. republican congressman of new york peter king said he would rather jump off a bridge than support cruz. to me he's a guy with a big mouth and no results. >> would you support him in at the hess the nominee? >> i hope the day never comes. i'll jump off the bridge if it comes to it. here he is. >> imagine in 2017 a new president signing legislation repealing every word of obamacare.

imagine abolishes the i.r.s. imagine repealing every word of common core. we will get back and restore that shining city on a hill that is the united states of america. thank you and god bless you. well, there he is giving blessings to a bunch of students who were told if they didn't show up, they would have to pay $10. the common core might be just the beginning, when he ran for the senate in 2012, he told a crowd the tea party republicans that abolishing the irs was just the beginning. >> we need to eliminate unnecessary and unconstitutional agencies. we need to eliminate the department of education.

we need to eliminate the department of commerce. the department of energy. the national endowment of the arts. and i'll tell you what to eliminate is the irs. >> howard deal former dnc chair, and barry -- gentlemen, i don't know how to cover this guy, because he gives us all the information we need. he is unbelievable. he's a black hole. >> he's not going to win, but he's going to be fun and provide a lot of fireworks. the problem is for the other people in the field, they need the 15% or 20% of the vote he can get in the primary. it's going to skew the field in some way he could result in the election of the nomination of jeb bush. >> what happened?

he will go after bush. >> he certainly will. there was an article today about his guru, apparently one of the meanest guys you ever saw that comes out of missouri named roe, and it would be a hell of a primary once again. i don't see how they run a primarily without coming out bloody. >> when you spent a couple months on they road trip debates with 20 or 30 of them on national television, this guy will be the show. maybe if you get donald trump in there, you'll have a two-ring circus, but it will be hard for people of limited craziness, scott walker, you may disagree, but he's not crazy, or people like jeb bush, how do you get attention away from these characters. >> jeb bush i think will be comfortable. so they see a debate where cruz is saying you're no amnesty, and jeb bush will say, okay, i guess i am.

>> you married an a mexican -- that may be crudely put, but you can say, i know you have family concerns. the danger i think is for scott walker. he wants to be the person who wins iowa. cruz will push him every day. what about the state department? you can imagine -- >> let me ask you this. in the end don't they want somebody to run the government? >> the republicans do, but the problem is these guys get a real traction, and we saw this in the last -- you know, romney was clearly confidence confident he could run the government, but he was saying crazy stuff, because he was pushed by people like ted cruz. this field is more formidable in terms of their intellect than the last field. >> you mean smarter -- >> cruz is smart. he's nuts, but he's smart. >> that is the question. i was saying last night on the

show, check me on this, gentlemen. i think the visceral hatred of obama, i think some of it may be ethnic. they hate everything about him. they don't like his family, his face, they don't like anything about him. they look at cruz and say i hate him more than you do. is that the appeal? >> i think so. especially with these tea party people. >> jeb bush doesn't hate obama. >> i don't think -- >> i truly don't -- i agree with you that that's what the republican looks like, because the vocal people are the ones that get all the press. i don't think the average republican has a significant hate, but i think the right wing, that's ted cruz' territory. if that gives him 15% of the caucus, he may not win, but he will certainly skew it. a sparring partner today, matt lauer of "today" and he

said he's a great compromiser, just like ronald reagan. let's watch this argument with matt lauer. >> will you bring that brand of no compromise to the white house if you're elected? >> matt, let me disagree with the premise. i've never said i won't compromise. in fact from day one, when i was elected, i want my attitude on compromise is exactly the same as ronald reagan. reagan said what do you do if they offer half a loaf? answer, you take it and then come back for more. >> shortly after you were elected you said, i don't think what washington needs is more compromise? >> because what washington does not often is that it compromises going backwards. >> i don't know what he means. ronald reagan cut a pretty good deal, a everyone appeared saved social security, and compromised with o'neal, my boss, and others. i don't know what -- >> biggest difference is ronald reagan served as governor for

eight years, so he knew how the place worked. he knows nothing. he's been in the senate three years, he hasn't gotten any bills passed at all. this is not a guy who truly understands government. you may not like reagan's conservative politics, but he understood government and understood what it was to be ceo. >> he ace could youed obama being under communist influence. >> didn't ted cruz go to harvard? >> he resisted it somehow. he goes after chuck hagel with two purple hearts from vietnam, saying this guy is taking 200k from the north korean communists. i don't think he's aware -- i'll be kind. i don't think he has any knowledge of the mccarthy period, because he imat a time him so blasantly. you mean he's deliberately -- >> i think he's deliberately usable inflammatory language all the time. >> what do you call it?

>> i would call it opportunism. >> what's that say? what's the message? >> desperately wants to win. >> you're afraid to say it. >> he wants power. >> you're afraid to say it, aren't you? >> no, i'm -- >> anyway, cruz, the senator says the media paints him as a crazy guy with dynamite strapped to his chest. actually we do. he got that right. >> historically two character turs. we're either stupid or evil. >> or both. bush, dan quayle, dick cheney. by the way, stupid is better. if you're picking one or the other. stupid is better. >> than evil? >> yes. i take it as a bit of a backhanded compliment, that they have invented a third

caricature. >> which is you're smart. you went to harvard and -- >> yeah, they paint me's a wild-eyed lunatic with dynamite around my chest. >> what would you call that? an interview? >> he did ask if he was born in the u.s. or canada? >> and what did they come up with as the significance for that? >> nothing. he asked him in a joking way in the birtherism, very polite, and not the way they treat president obama, obviously, but cruz, what he's saying the last couple days, he's for compromise? does he think we have amnesia? >> against people that really aren't that controversial, john kerry, people like that. he voted against every one. >> he's a bomb thrower, he'll be amusing. people will vote because they're emotional and angry. >> let's watch him last night

launching a missile here. >> i think obamacare has been the biggest disaster, the biggest training wren, i think president obama has been the most lawless president we've had. a bizarre orwellian -- he won't -- the consistent pattern of the obama/clinton foreign policy has been abandoning our friends and allies, whether it's israel, whether it's the uk, whether it's canada, and coddling and appeasing our enemies. >> what do you think about the president and his treatment of prime minister netanyahu and israel? >> it is shameful. it is disgraceful. this administration has been the most antagonistic administration to israel in the history of this country. >> well, you saw it. it was the -- he put politically speaking here, with any value -- or unvalue or demerits, every button to the evangelical right. netanyahu is a victim?

>> here's the problem -- contrary to what some people think, the republican party is not full of crazy people, and he is crazy -- hess's not really crazy, but appealing to people who are not quite all there. that's not the majority of 9 republican party. there's no way he's getting the nomination, but he is going to stir the pot. he's going to change the dynamic in the campaign. >> all the things he said, governor walker agrees with those things. repeal. our foreign policy is terrible. the difference in policy between scott walker, the normal moderate one and ted cruz is very small on most issues, as the guy said in "charlie wilson's war" we'll see. thank you both. up next the supreme court's decision to let the voter i.d. law in wisconsin stand. it could have a wide impact on hillary clinton come 2016. this is "hardball," the place for politics.

0

back to "hardball." the supreme court decline to hear a challenge to wisconsin's 2011 voter i.d. law, a move that allows that controversial regulation to go into effect just in time for the 2016 presidential elections. it could pave the way for voters i.d. laws in other states across the country. it's a victory to the law's republican defenders, including governor walker, who said this is great news for wisconsin voters, this is a common-sense reform that protects the integrity of our voting process, making it easy to vote and hard to cheat. well, but critics say requiring a state-issued photoo i.d. to vote is an unjustified burden. most of whom vote democratic. when the district judge blocked the last last year, he estimated probablily roughly 9% of all registered voters in wisconsin lack a qualifying i.d.

by comparison, president obama who won wisconsin's ten electoral votes in 2012 beat mitt romney by a margin, based on that simple mast, the requirements could may wisconsin a state that hasn't voted republican since '84, more competitive. wisconsin joins seven our states with strict voter i.d. requirements. i'm joined right now by john nichols of "the nation" as well as dale haught. tell me what the significance is. i'm looking at the map next year. i'm thinking this will be a close presidential election. hillary is popular now, has an edge in the fight for the nomination, the almost party is all over the place, but i think when it comes down to it, it will be a close national fight in the electoral college. what does this do if we see this

springing up of more of these voter i.d. laws, starting with the home of the republican party in wisconsin? john? >> it's a big deal, chris. it's a very big deal. you mentioned the 2012 election. if you go back just a little way to 2004 and 2000, wisconsin had presidential race that were so close that 10, 12,000 votes were deciding that john kerry won the state in '04 and al gore won in 200. this is a very closely divided state. if you begin to mangle the voting processes, if you make it harder to mobilize voters before an election, you definitely have an impact. this voter i.d. law has a top priority of scott walker since they got control of the legislature. now the court it seems to have given it to them. there was a reason they fought so hard. there was no great mobilization

on behalf of this law. it was because they knew that this was important to presidential politics. >> dale, let me go to you. in pennsylvania where i grew up, the big republicans up there, they openly said oh, boy, we've got a law. unfortunately in that case, it was shot down by the courts, but the republicans are blatant about it. this is a way to overcome the changes in this country. it protects older white people against the new people of color. your thoughts? it just does. >> i think it's unfortunate that we're in this place where politicians think the way they can try to win elections is instead of turning out their supporters or trying to convince people in the midding, instead of dos those things, instead they're trying to prevent people on the other sigh who they think will sport order candidates. it's really a shame. there were politicians in pennsylvania who openly boasted that their law was to try to deliver that state to mitt

romney in 2012. >> gentlemen, i promised to keep talking about this, because i think defending the right to vote is american, and oppressing the right to vote is not. thank you both. up next, a new report that the israelis have been spying on the iranian nuclear talks, and then giving the information they got to republicans in congress in an effort to derail the whole thing. that's next with the roundtable. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics.

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.

yesterday the white house chief of staff told a group of liberate supporters that the occupation must end. today a report in "wall street journal" said israelis spied on negotiations with iran over their nuclear program. this afternoon president obama said the u.s.ic pretend there's a possibility of reaching a two-state solution in the next several years. prime minister netanyahu in the election run-up stated that a mindial state would not occur while he was prime minister. and i took him at his word, that that's what he meant. afterwards he pointed out he didn't say "never" but that there would be a series of conditions in which a

palestinian state could potentially be created. but of course the conditions were such that they would be impossible to immediate anytime soon. >> wow. for their part, remember many republicans have celebrated netanyahu's political victory, one notable exception is former secretary of state baker. last night he spoke to j-street and said netanyahu's actions have harmed the prospect for reaches a peace deal. >> in the aftermath of netanyahu's recent election victory, the chance of a two-state solution appears even slimmer, of course, given his reversal on the issue on the eve of israel's elections last week. remember, three months after he took office as prime minister in 2009, netanyahu shared his vision for a two-state solution.

since then, his actions have not matched his rhetoric. his settlement construction has continued. i'm joint by tonight's roundtable. bob woodward, nedra pickler, with associated spread and ron fournier. bob, all our lives we've been talking middle east. always right at the top, but i've anyone -- it's almost like being in israel, it's okay now to take a position in the democratic party, it seems like. >> well, it's -- no question about it, but i don't think it's going to change the fundamentals. israel needs the united states -- the united states needs a democracy in the middle east, and that's the only one, so i don't think it's going to change, to put it simply, it's

not going to go down in the history books. >> what about the chance of any kind of land for peace or land for justice arrangements whereby we go back to something like it was before the '67 war. >>ist been off the table since then. you know, there's baker saying very wisely, gee, it looks like we're not going to get this. netanyahu has made that clear. >> not always. >> look, he made a bold, withdraw political calculation to get reelected, and i can name another -- many, many other politicians in this country. >> let's talk about the problem of the world. bob's right. we have to take the heat for anything they do, basically. that's a world fact. on therefore when they say no settlements, no stopping of the settlements on the west bank, no

palestinian state, no two-state solution, that goes back to us in the arab world. they don't like us. >> and the white house will not let them off the hook. the funny thing about this, is everyone is going out saying things that are true, but they won't say them. >> why is candor now acceptable? >> relations are just at a whole new low. you have president obama today gives a very short mention to the friend shim between vault. he said very frankly, this is not going to be singing kumbaya, there are real differences, and their relationship is business-like. that's the same phrase he's used for putin. >> the democrats have all tried to bill clinton got quoted recently saying he had a problem with netanyahu, and so it's not out in the open. >> i was struck by this. it starts with netanyahu for

stealing u.s. intelligence, using his handmaidens in congress to try to divides congress from one branch of government -- >> who are the handmaidens? >> mcconnell and boehner. >> how about menendez? would you call him that? >> on this issue, sure. >> so obviously there's this breach. obviously the -- because it started with netanyahu, the relationship is going down the drain. we need an adult here. i was hoping that the adult in the room would be the president of the united states. it still has to be the president of the united states. he's not going to quit this fight. >> but maybe he should. maybe frame is differently. >> i want to political, why has he decided to keep this fight going. what's changes? >> maybe why he decided to give up fighting with republicans. as soon as it got tough, no, can't deal with them, even though he came into office knowing they would be difficult,

the israelis don't want to deal with us? he knew all along, it's not like things changed, so why does he decide to accept this answer? and that stopped the -- >> this is -- i don't think there's a way around it. i think netanyahu is my way or the highway. we've got to completely roll them back in terms of enrichment of urain ymt. that's not doable, is it? that was his position. >> right. so what's -- the president has decided to -- i can't do anything with this, let's just push it off to the side. >> i think the president's reaction is sincere. netanyahu is a hard case, and there's been -- ron says it's going down the drain. actually it was 7/8 of the way down the drain kind of in the first year or two of the obama administration. >> what incentive does he have to make nice? the president is not up for

reelection. this relationship has been bad for a long time. >> to be clear, i'm not saying make nice, but we have to figure a way out of this. >> we always think the israel as the jewish community's biggest interest, and it is, personal interest, of course, a background issue, a holocaust concern, but it's evangelicals in the republican party i think are driving this train to the right, like you heard ted cruz, this is a whole new reality. israel has an icon ache meaning to them. >> right, but as you know, it's not a new issue on the right. >> to me its think it's dramatic. >> but ron is asking a good question -- who is the adult in the room? >> it would have to be the next president. >> i've looked around the room and it's vacant. >> hillary clinton will inherit this whole met mess? >> this will be an issue in the campaign, it's going to be

something you hear both sides talking about, and it will be up to the next president. >> if hillary clinton wants to be president, she has to come up to a better -- >> i hope the republicans pay for the prom date. >> terrible precedent. do they think they'll never have a president -- is this the precedent republicans want? >> i don't think it should be a theater in the round for politics. the roundtable is staying with us. up next hillary clinton wants to start over with the press. i can't way to hear about the reset button from these experts here. this is "hardball," the place for politics. 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 i already feel like we're the most connected but i think this solo date will seal the deal. sure! i offer multi-car, safe driver, and so many other discounts that people think i'm a big deal. and boy, are they right. ladies, i can share hundreds in savings with all of you! just visit progressive.com today. but right now, it's choosing time. ooh! we have a winner. all: what? [chuckles] he's supposed to pick one of us.

this is a joke, right? that was the whole point of us being here. secret service director joseph collagy again testified on capitol hill about the two agents who bumped their car into a barricade at the white house after a night of drinking. for the first time, he got to see police surveillance video of that incident. the house oversight committee showed the video from the metropolitan police department. clancy has been criticized for the way the agency has handled the incident, and he's complained he wasn't told about it until five days after it happened. he also announced a new policy where surveillance video will be retained for seven days. we'll be right back.

no more secrecy. no more zone of privacy. after all, what good did that do me?

we're back with our panel, bob, nedra and ron, and of course hillary clinton has been dogged by controversy, but now she's trying to put that behind her. at a dinner with journalists, she tried to make it seem it was funny and a misunderstanding. here she is. >> i'm well aware that some of you no more secrecy. no more zone of privacy. after all, what good did that do me? >> and we're back with our panel. bob, nejdra, and ron. and of course, hillary clinton no more secrecy. no more zone of privacy. after all, what good did that do me? has been dogged by controversy over her personal e-mail server, but now she's trying to put all

of that behind her, at a dinner with journalists monday night, she tried to make it seem like it was all kind of funny and kind of a misunderstanding. here she is, the former secretary of state. >> i am well aware that some of you may be a little surprised to see me here tonight. you know, my relationship with the press has been at times, shall we say, complicated. >> well, you know, bob, she's spoken a lot before, very loving audiences, people that really like her, women's groups and all. that was an audience that liked her that you wouldn't normally think. but she got a good treatment last night and people sort of chuckled at her jokes. do you think that's funny, the e-mail dispute? was it a funny story in itself? >> no, we were joking -- she thinks they're gone, they've been erased. the chinese or the iranians probably have them. anyone who thinks they have cybersecurity is deluding themselves. >> but you also told me in the green room tonight, that it's very hard, unless there's some kind of a criminal investigation, for anyone to subpoena them. >> yeah, i think there's kind of a presumption, somebody filed the freedom of information act request, and so we're going to see these things. she has a privacy claim here. and if you liken them, as some have, to the nixon tapes, in the nixon tapes case, my god, the supreme court ruled that he had to turn them over to a grand jury, not to congressional committees, not to people who filed freedom of information act requests. so, i think the likelihood of ever seeing those, unless she voluntarily gives them up, is close to zero. and she -- if you think about it, it's -- somebody did some very good lawyering in saying, before there is a subpoena, before there's a request for these, i just eliminated them, because there's a privacy concern.

well -- >> nixon could have done that. >> yeah. well, nixon, actually, if you go up to the nixon library and say, give me the tape of whatever, and if it's not related to abuse of power or watergate, they say, well, there's a national security or a privacy claim. now, this is 40 years later, so, i'll be happy to take you and the family to dinner if we ever see a substantial number of -- >> let's talk about the reset aspect of this. can she charm her way back into -- i think there's a thing there -- it's a chicken and egg thing. you can go back, it seems to me, and say she felt there was too much folklore press against her, back in the '80s, about her hairdo or wearing glasses or whatever, and she said, i've had enough of that crap, and white water, and you could argue she's

the one playing defense, or you could say, she's a privacy person and shouldn't be in public life. >> let me tell you, a lot of the journalists in that room last night were not around for those old stories. she has an opportunity to have a relationship with the new press. >> will the new press be as aggressive as they should be? >> absolutely, even more so. are you kidding, now in the days of twitter and rumors getting out everywhere. and she was trying to make light, a new first step last night in terms of building the relationship. but there's going to be a lot of other changes in terms of acknowledging the problem, cracking a few jokes. she did stay after her speech, by the way, and work the room for about 30 minutes. >> off the record? >> it was just people going up to chat with her. >> ron, i've been thinking that she -- i don't know her that well, but she's very likable. there's nothing about her that's not likable. my question is -- most people like her when they get to know her a little bit. my question is, can she go to like a 60 minutes thing, i'm not going to make myself available

like some new york politician. can she get away with that? >> i guess she could get away with it, depending on who the republicans put up, but it's not the modern, smart way to do it. i've known her since the mid-80s, she is very likable, very smart, very endearing, very funny. she is someone who you tend to want to give the benefit of the doubt and understand more as a reporter. so the more access she gives us, i think the better opportunity she has to get her message out through us. the problem is -- >> you're lawyering her into these interviews now, right -- >> well, yeah, she should start with me. but the problem is, the only way shaes going to get this behind her in an age where especially young americans are demanding accountability and good governance is to turn over the server to an independent review. obviously, all her private e-mails, nobody should see. turn it over, and she's got to hand over those foreign donations that went to the foundation. i think these two stories are -- >> those are patriot strong demands. >> the judge stennis solution is still there. find a thirty party that will do

it. because nixon tried that. you can be judge stennis. thank you bob woodward. thank you nejdra, thank you, ron. when we return, let me finish with what appears to be the republican strategy to offset demographic change in this country. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics. water got inside and ruined everybody's everythings. the house thought she let the family down. but the family just didn't think a flood could ever happen. the reality is floods do happen. protect what matters. call the number on your screen or visit the website to learn more.

just because i'm away from my desk doesn't mean i'm not working. comcast business understands that. their wifi isn't just fast near the router. it's fast in the break room. fast in the conference room. fast in tom's office. fast in other tom's office. fast in the foyer [pronounced foy-yer] or is it foyer [pronounced foy-yay]? fast in the hallway. i feel like i've been here before. switch now and get the fastest wifi everywhere. comcast business. built for business. let me finish tonight with what appears to be the republican strategy to offset demographic change. when you think about it, the thing is quite basic. okay, we in the u.s. have a growing minority population. a younger minority population, that will, over time, convert

the number of white americans into a minority of the population. if you're a republican, how do you deal with that quandary? i mean, given the fact that your party built its numbers on older white people. you make it harder for minorities to vote. let's start in wisconsin, whose voter i.d. law just got a kiss from the republican-led supreme court. wisconsin is the them state of republican national chairman, reince priebus, the man who has within the general of the voter suppression movement. it may also be the home of the 2016 republican presidential nominee, governor scott walker. so the way we might course this thing for republican candidate is to cut back on the regular democratic older african-american vote. how about that for a deal? for a reince priebus strategy. well, it's on the move starting with wisconsin. it will now be the starting point of the reince priebus party effort to curtail minority voters. richard nixon's southern

strategy is nothing compared to the reince priebus strategy, getting white-minded people to vote for it in 1968 is nothing compared to killing the right of minorities to vote for their opponent come 2016. is there some prize out there that this makes mr. priebus eligible for? "all in with chris hayes starts right now. tonight, while investigators are focusing on the eight minutes of descent. then, a "wall street journal" blockbuster. was israel spying on america and feeding intelligence to republican lawmakers? plus, why ted cruz birthers have it all wrong. >> on 9/11, i didn't want like how rock music responded. >> reporter: >> and the man who shut down american government to end