i won't be going anywhere near that canal. rachel maddow has the night off. after years and years of the country being at war after years and years of the bush era war on terror, after years of housing hundreds of prisoners at guantanamo bay, after years of covert drones, after all of that the president took to the stage on that day after may 23rd of 2013 to address his administration's stance on all of those issues. >> from our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects,

the decisions that we are making now will define the type of nation and world that we leave to our children. so america is at a crossroads. we must define the nature and scope of this struggle or else it will define us. >> in that speech the president went on to say that the war must end and that the policy on drones was going to change. and this was the first time in that speech, this was the first time that the president had spoken so publicly, so openly about all of this, about the drone program, about covert operations in places where this country is not technically at war, places like yemen and pakistan. the president spoke that day about the casualties that come with that sort of warfare. >> it is a hard fact that u.s. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in every war. for the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss.

for me and those in my chain of command, those deaths will haunt us as long as we live. >> obama in that speech was making the case that even though those casualties haunt him, those drones are legal and that while, yes, there are casualties, those programs work. the president was interrupted. >> richard reid, the shoe bomber, is serving a maximum security sentence in the united states. the judge told him the way we treat you is the measure of our own --

>> if that the way you treat a 16-year-old african? can you tell the muslim people their lives are as pressure as our lives? can you take the drones out of the hands of the cia? can you stop the signature strikes that are killing people -- >> now, the 16-year-old that protester was referring to, he was one of the seven american known to be killed by an american drone strike since the year 2009 and one of the ones who was killed inadvertently. he was killed by accident, a 16-year-old. first american drone strike outside of afghanistan is believed to have occurred in november of 2002 in yemen. that strike killed a senior al qaeda leader and five other suspected militants, including an american citizens who was

suspected of recruiting a terror cell in buffalo new york. in 2011, this guy, 23-year-old north carolina man who had been a recruiting for al qaeda and pakistani call i ban was killed in 2011 in what attorney general eric holder called a counterterrorism operation. he was not, however, targeted. he was would serve for as the editor for a group called inspire, was also killed in a drone strike. that strike was not intended for him. it was intended for this american-born cleric, anwar al awlaki. his 16-year-old american son that the activist heckled the president in the tape you saw, he was killed in a drone strike the day before the accident.

the administration finally formally acknowledged they had killed those two americans in drone strikes outside of afghanistan and iraq, in other words, outside of the war zones where this country was officially waging war. when it comes to americans killed by drone strikes, we knew only of those four. we knew only of those four until today. because today we learned that an american aid worker, an american who was a hostage of al qaeda, that american was killed in an american drone strike. his name is warren weinstein, he was working on contract in lahore, pakistan, when he was killed in 2011. he's believed to have been killed in a drone strike along pakistan's border in january this year. there are some reports intelligence agencies have been working for some time to try to

piece together exactly what happened and how he was accidentally killed. it should be noted that this is the first case of the american hostage being killed by an american drone strike. that same drone strike took the life of giovanni lo porto. he was kidnapped in january 2012. the intended target in january was an al qaeda compound. the administration say they go had no idea those two hostages were hidden inside that compound. president obama addressed the error this morning during a statement in the white house briefing room. >> as president and as commander in chief, i take full responsibility for all our operations, including the ones that took the lives of warren and giovanni. i profound live regret what happened and on behalf of the

united states government, i offer our deepest apologies to the families. it is a cruel and bit are truth that notice fog of war generally and our fight against terrorists specifically, mistakes, sometimes deadly mistakes, can occur. >> the president today apologizing for the accidental killing of those hostages, an american and an italian. the american hostage and that italian were not the only ones who died in the drone strike that we learned about today. richard engel reports on that part of the story tonight. >> warren weinstein wasn't the only american killed in the u.s. drone strikes. there were two others fighting with al qaeda. s -- the voice on this video experts say belongs to adam gadahn, an american narrating a notorious propaganda video of

the 9/11 hijackers. born adam pearlman, his grandfather jewish, his grandfather was raised on a goat farm in virginia, attending this mosque and getting in trouble in the mid 1990s for his increasingly extreme views. he traveled to pakistan, initially hiding his face. he was the first charged with treason since the world war ii region. >> his death was a big blow to al qaeda operations, specifically in the recruitment of westerners. >> gadahn was al qaeda's most famous americans, but experts say this man also killed may have been more dangerous. ahmed farooq rose throughs ranks to become their second in command in pakistan.

farooq was at the same compound where dr. weinstein and the italian aid worker were held, an american keeping a fellow american hostage for al qaeda. the u.s. doesn't always know who it's killing. >> that was nbc's richard engel reporting tonight on the other americans killed in the january drone strikes, the ones who did have ties to terrorism but were apparently not specifically targeted. but with today's acknowledgement by the administration that american drone strikes did kill two hostages, again an italian and american, that makes it seven americans total now who have been killed by drone strikes since 2009, six of them

killed unintentionally and out of the seven americans, two of them do not seem to have been implicated in any sort of terrorist activity. the 16-year-old and the american hostage who we learned about only today, the one that we were previously trying to save. these latest developments today do raise the question how effective really is this covert drone war that we are waging? is there a way to do this, to carry out this program, to target the so-called bad guys without at the same time potentially hurting innocent bystanders in the process. joining us now is missy ryan. she's a pentagon reporter for "the washington post." thank force being here tonight. >> thank you. we're talking about drones, we're talking about basically the trigger being pulled thousands of miles away. it opens up to seems to me a pretty huge possibilities and margin for error if we're going to have a drone program that targets thousands of miles away, do we have to accept the feature that american may be killed?

>> the drone operation has become a cornerstone of america's counterterrorism policy. talking to officials today, i think this is an inherent risk that comes along with conducting this kind of operation and in balance it does pose less risk to americans obviously here in the united states when you're talking about an operation that doesn't require u.s. military personnel to be on the ground and then just to the country generally. there isn't the possibility that things go wrong if you're sending in a seal team to pakistan or deploying a large number of troops into yemen, for example. so the obama administration has seized on the drone policy and ramped up the number of drone strikes significantly since 2009. and i don't see any indication that it's backing away overall globally from the drone program. >> so what have we gotten from this? it's been ramped up dramatically.

we've lost an innocent american to this drone program. what have we gotten for having the drone program? >> the administration would say you have an al qaeda that is severely weakened because of over the course of years and dozens and dozens of drone strikes, you've had dozens of senior operatives who have been killed and then if you rook it the yemen, one of the most virulent affiliates of al qaeda and they're much weaker than they used to be. >> the other question is in terms of where the program goes from here, obviously this changes the public's understanding of it, learning a 73-year-old american totally innocent in all of this is killed today. will that change i imagine, the public's attitude toward this? is it going to have any effect on how this program is carried out in the future?

>> i don't think so. i think it gives counterterrorism officials pause. obviously -- i mean, you saw obama in his remarks today, it was a very somber and emotional address. i think it gives officials pause when they're relying on intelligence that may be imperfect. but this is a program that's far too important to american terrorism policy to just sort of walk away from. i think that what it will do is deepen the personal impressions and the treatment of hostages overseas. the family of this man, what are they saying about all of this? >> weinstein's family has been very critical of the administration's handling of warren weinstein's case. they said they got incomplete and conflicting information and in a actually is the same story that you had from family members

of other hostages and jim foley, who was killed by isis. >> missy ryan, pentagon reporter for "the washington post," appreciate your time. thanks very much. >> lots more ahead in the show tonight, including why one republican presidential hopeful is practically begging for his state to be boycotted. please stay with us. you forgot the milk! that's lactaid®. right. 100% real milk just without the lactose. so, no discomfort? exactly. try some... mmm, it is real milk. lactaid®. 100% real milk. no discomfort. i hate cleaning the gutters. have you touched the stuff? it's evil. and ladders... awwwwwww!!!!! they have all those warnings on them. might as well say, "you're going to die, jeff". you hired someone to clean the gutters?

not just someone. someone from angie's list. but we're not members. we don't have to be to use their new snapfix feature. angie's list helped me find a highly rated service provider to do the work at a fair price. come see what the new angie's list can do for you.

all right. chart imitates life. this needs a little bit of context. a decade ago, when a poll asked should it be legal for gay couples to get married, it came back no. and then that answer changed barely in november of 2012, "the washington post" abc news poll asked whether people supported the right for same-sex marriages and it came slimly out on the yes, and it jumped to 55%, then

57%, then to 59%, then it dipped a bit. now look at this. with the supreme court set to take this issue up again this week, the new polling shows support for marriage equality has hit 61%. that means it's grown 10 points just since november of 2012. it is nearly double the size it was when we started asking this question more than a decade ago. understandably that ground swell gets the headline today. more than 60% of this country now supports game marriage, the first time that number has ever been that high. however, that still leaves the other 40%. we'll talk about that in the new race for the white house just ahead.

we were just talking about this new poll from the "washington post" and abc news showing 6 in 10 americans now saying they support same-sex marriage. that's the highest that number has ever been. however, that still leaves a sizable chunk of americans who remain opposed to gay marriage. and who those people are is extremely important right now. take a look. when you ask just republicans this question about gay marriage, you find a majority of them, 6 in 10 of them say they're still against same-sex marriage. in fact, most republicans describe themselves as strongly opposed to gay marriage. which helps to explain why every single one of the announced or

potential 2016 gop presidential candidates opposes gay marriage. their audience right now is not the country as a whole, it's the base of the republican party, it's the people they're going to need to win over if they're going to have any chance of winning the republican nomination. you have the company overall moving toward the acceptance of gay marriage and the republican party still opposed to it. that leaves the republicans candidates in the bit of a bind. the new litmus test has become if you were invited to a gay wedding, would you go to it? here's what marco rubio said. >> if it's someone i love in my life, i would have to believe in their opinion. i would point out we live in a free society. if people want to change the definition of marriage, they should petition the state legislature and they can have that debate in the political arena.

>> same question to ted cruz. if you were invited to a gay wedding, what would you do? >> well, i will tell you, i haven't faced that circumstance. i have not had a loved one go to a gay -- have a gay wedding. you know, at the end of the day what the media tries to twist the question of marriage into is they try to twist it into a battle of emotions and personalities. >> you could probably call that one more of a dodge than an answer. and as far as the other candidates go, rick perry says he would probably go to a same-sex wedding but the question isn't that important. john kasich says he is going to one but says "i don't need to be making any big statements about this". scott walker says he's been to a same-sex wedding reception, though he still opposes same-sex marriage. they are really faces two contests here, the one for the 60% of americans who support

same-sex marriage add and the one before, that the one for the 60% of republicans who don't. so one potential candidate is try tag new tactic, embracing the unpopularity of his positions opinion louisiana governor bobby jindal has been pressing ahead with a religious freedom bill for his state ash bill like the ones that got indiana and arkansas in hot water recently because of claims they would have opened the door to discrimination against gay people. even as huge business interests in the state of louisiana, we're talking about companies like ibm, companies like electronic parts. these are companies that have come to open businesses in his state, even as though businesses have objected to what jindal is talking about, has said louisiana shouldn't go down this road and shouldn't pass one of those religious freedom law, that this will jeopardize their business in the state of louisiana. even in the face of that, bobby jindal says he's holding firm.

in an on-ed this morning, he's, large corporations recently joined left-wing activists to bully elected officials. officials cowered among the shrieks of big business and the radical left. governor jindal acknowledges that american opinion is changing on the issue of gay marriage but says i will not change my faith-driven view even if it becomes. >> it's time for corporate america to ache a decision. this allows with popular conservatives to alie this is what makes freedom's defense possible.

he knows that the business community thinks it's bad for business, but he's going ahead and pushing it anyway. there are still a lot of republican voters to do exactly what he's doing. who may very well reward candidate who is do and say what jindal is doing and saying. just next week the supreme court will be hearing the big same-sex marriage case that could affect all 50 states. the republican hopefuls are having a hard time talking about this already what many expect it's going to do. >> but what about the republicans? t people to impress and no time to spare. luckily, she protected her dress from odors with new downy fresh protect it's like deodorant for your clothes. just toss it in with detergent and like deodorant, it neutralizes odors on the spot protecting fabrics all day long

so even on the busiest of days her dress always smells like success new downy fresh protect, wash in the wow

earlier this one republican presidential candidate ted cruz sent a letter to thousands of pastor across the country. he asked them to lead prayer services in support of biblical marriage next tuesday. this is the supreme court hears arguments on whether same-sex marriage should be made legal nationwide. cruz has been one of the most outspoken voices against same-sex marriage. it was a huge applause line in his presidential announcement speech. however, this week apparently he struck a very different tone. this was at a reception hosted by pro prominent gay hotel owners in new york where cruz apparently did not mention his opposition to same-sex marriage and said, quote, he would have

no problem if one of his daughters was gay. it's yet another sign of the difficult line republican presidential hopefuls are walking as the country grows ever more accepting of gay marriage, even as the republican base remains opposed to it. joining us is robert costa, national political reporter for "the washington post." thank you for being here tonight. let's just pick um on cruz because publicly ted cruz is more sort of the face of the anti-gay movement than just about any of the other presidential candidates. he goes to this event in new york city, he says he has no problem if his daughter is gay. do we know where the real ted cruz is on this? >> i think ted cruz wants to be the leader on the right, wants to be the hard liner fighting the cultural war but he's a lawyer, a constitutional scholar, he knows as well as anyone if the supreme court rules, as it's expected to perhaps, to legalize gay marriage, he recognizes he can fight religious freedom, even if he doesn't make marriage a central battle.

>> what happens if the supreme court ruling, expectation is this is going to legalize it in all 50 states. what becomes the default republican position on that? are we going to have a year and a half of now we need a constitutional amendment, we've got to overturn what the supreme court did? or does the refrain come the court has spoken, we're done with this. >> someone like cruz will be a beacon. bobby jindal is you can get political oxygen in a place like iowa by going out really hard what he thinks is the cultural left. is bobby jindal going to win the debate or can the others become the chief voices? >> the jindal thing seems like it's the ultimate play to the base. he look tess polls and sees the majority of the republican party

is there, i'm going to go for the most committed of that majority of this party. how far can he get with that? >> the last two people to win iowa, mike huckabee, they didn't win the nominations. if you're not going to make marriage your battle cry, maybe iowa doesn't matter as much to you, focus on new hampshire and let the bobby jindals of the world fight it out. >> right up until the moment that barack obama and joe biden said we support gay marriage, conventional wisdom said it's way to early for someone to run for president who supports gay marriage. the conventional wisdom is i'm fine with, this i support gay marriage, let's move on to something else. do you think that's true or is there maybe more room than we think. >> it's going to be up to tough. the one person i thought could argue particular late that is not going to run.

if ted cruz and scott walker and jeb bush aren't putting these issues at the fore, that will stay a lot. >> it's going it become unavoidable. i was just in new hampshire. republicans want to talk about economic and fiscal issues and this -- >> the contrast to me always goes back to 2004, the supreme court in massachusetts legalizes gay marriage and the instant response from the republicans is a constitution to oppose it and here we are barely ten years later -- >> when i talked to donors of bush, even donors who are intrigued by hillary clinton candidacy.

how do you win them back if they're turning in such droves toward same-sex marriage? you have to have a tone and an approach, even if you don't change your position. >> robert costa, thanks for your time. >> thank you. >> ahead the big story on the democratic side of the democratic 2016 campaign. new scrutiny tonight surrounding the clintons and their finances. details in just a bit. nervous whitening will damage your teeth? introducing listerine® healthy white™. it not only safely whitens teeth... ...but also restores enamel. lose the nerves and get a healthier whiter smile that you'll love. listerine® healthy white™. power to your mouth™!

today the unthinkable happened here in washington. president obama's attorney general nominee, loretta lynch, got a vote. it had been 166 days since she was nominated, but today the senate confirmed lynch to become the next attorney general of the united states by a vote of 56-43. republicans had delayed and delayed this vote for months, but when the vote finally came today, ten of them actually did vote in favor of her nomination, including senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. and also notably republican senator thad cochran of mississippi. cochran, who recently survived a republican primary challenge for his seat, largely on the

strength of african-american voters in mississippi. so it took more than five months but loretta lynch will now become the nation's first african-american to serve as attorney general. earlier tonight president obama reacted to news of her confirmation during a speech in front of activist group organizing for america. >> before i start with some other issues, i want to say publicly for the first time i've been looking forward to saying this, that i am very pleased that loretta lynch has now been confirmed -- [ cheers and applause ] >> you know, america will be better off for it. >> organizing for action i should say is the name of that group. loretta lynch will now back the 83rd attorney general of the

united states and she will assume that job after what has been one of the longest waits that any cabinet secretary has ever had to endure. she's expected to officially be sworn in on monday. we'll be right back.

six years ago hillary clinton was about to become secretary of state. barack obama had nominated her, everyone knew she was going to be confirmed by the senate, going to be confirmed easily. but there was a thought, there was a question, there was a doubt out there about a potential conflict of interest. >> the core of the problem is that foreign governments and entities may perceive the clinton foundation as a means to gain favor with the secretary of state. although neither senator clinton nor president clinton has a personal financial stake in the foundation. obviously its work benefits their legacy and their public service priorities.

>> the foundation and the president-elect decided to go beyond what the law and the ethics rules call for to address even the appearance of conflict, and that is why they signed a memorandum of understanding, which outlines the voluntary steps that the foundation is taking to address potential concerns that might come up down the road. >> again, that was early 2009. it do not get much attention back then. there was the theoretical possibility of a conflict of interest, the idea that a foreign government or foreign entity might give massively to the clinton foundation in the hopes of winning favor with secretary of state hillary clinton. there was that theoretical possibility, and there was also clinton's insistence that there wouldn't even be an appearance of any conflict. but today that same issue suddenly got a lot of attention. the "new york times" reporting

that while hillary clinton was secretary of state, her state department and other agencies approved a deal allowing a canadian mine company to sell its uranium business to the russians. that same canadian mining company, which again it needed state department approval for this deal, that same company also donated heavily to the clinton foundation. as the times reports today, "uranium one's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the clintons, despite an agreement mrs. clinton had struck with the obama white house to publicly identify all donors. other people with ties to the company made donations as well." >> and "sharply after the russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in uranium one, mr. clinton received add 500,000 for a mass could you speech to a russian group. the clinton campaign points out

that the clintons were just one of nine agencies to approve that deal. clinton campaign spokesman also telling nbc news today no one has produced a shred of evidence that hillary clinton ever took action as secretary of state in order to support the interest of donors to the clinton foundation. it's also worth noting this "new york times" story grows out of a new book called "clinton cash" and the author of that book is a conservative write from her a

conservative research group whose leadership includes the same billionaire family bankrolling ted cruz's campaign. this is something the clinton camp noted in the first sentence of their response today. "the times is relying on research of the conservative author of clinton cash." the same conservative author is also writing a book scrutinizes jeb bush's history. that book will be released sometime this summer. and there was more news about how bill clinton has received millions in speaking fees from companies and organizes that also donated heavily to the clinton foundation. in a report the clinton foundation is in the process reviewing its tax returns, they're going to be refiling them to reflect some of the money they got came from foreign governments. the press and hillary's

political enemies have been looking closely at the clinton foundation and its relationship with foreign governments for months now. the clinton foundation agreed to disclose all new foreign donations but the latest reporting says the foundation did not always abide by those standards. for example, they reportedly failed to disclose an unsolicited donation made by the government of algeria in 2010 to help with haiti earthquake relief efforts. hillary clinton formally resigned from the foundation board the day she announced candidacy this month. she's vowed to be more open about the foundation's finances. just today chelsea clinton at a forum on women's rights was asked about the foundation. >> why did the foundation take saudi arabia when they didn't treat women, you know, as well as perhaps they could? and there's questions even this morning in the "new york times" about money coming from ukraine and there's this perception of

were favors done in exchange for funding. i wanted to get your thoughts on that. >> well, lots of questions in that. we have always partnered with, you know, governments, ngos, foundations who believe the work we do is important. what the clinton foundation has said is that we will be even more transparent, even though transparency international and others have said we're among the most transparent foundations. we'll disclose donors on a quarter live basis and not just an annual basis. i very much believe that that's the right policy, that we'll be even more transparent, that to eliminate any questions while we're in this time, we won't take new government funding but that the work will continue as it is. >> now, again, there is no smoking gun in anything that we learned today. the clintons are adamant that there is no there there and it really might be as simple as that, but there is the appearance of a conflict here, the possibility of a conflict. that's what the reporting shows

today and that's what hillary said six years ago there wouldn't be. there are questions here. there are difficult questions leer, murky questions here but legitimate questions. will the response that the clinton campaign offered today be enough to put the issue to rest? will she have to say more? are we in store for more reports as the press and, yes, clinton's political enemies dig deeper in the months ahead? alex, thanks for joining us tonight. the first thing that strikes me about all this, we played it at the top there, her confirmation hearing six years ago, hillary says absolutely nothing to worry about there and exactly what lugar was describing then is what we're reading about today. >> absolutely. there's a difference between perception and substance and on substance they might be okay. there's a lot of quid here but there's not necessarily a lot of quo. it's hard to believe that these

people are giving millions of dollars to the clinton foundation without at least some of them thinking that they might curry some favor with the clintons. whether that favor was returned in any way, we haven't seen that. but it certainly creates this perception and that's a problem. especially for her right now as she's trying to reintroduce herself to the country as this kind of humble, midwest grandmother, down to earth, not somebody who fits in this with larger narrative going back to the clinton white house that they use public office for personal gain. all of this fits into a question that she has with the e-mail scandal, with benghazi, that she's asking us to trust her. i deleted half my e-mails but there's no work related e-mails in there. we took money from people in there but there's no favor in there, trust us. there's a point where it may not longer work, where the benefit of the doubt may run out for her. >> you talk about the themes, the messages, humility, talking about working people in this country and talking about equality.

this is something republicans are eager to hammer them on but i wonder about this as a potent political question for republicans and a question voters might have, look at these sums of money that we're finding out bill clinton commands for these speeches. there's the conflict of interest itself if it's raised there. there's also just -- we're talking $250 million over the last ten plus years. >> right. and for a campaign that's expecting to raise $2 billion, a pac that can support them. we should say there's more than a little hypocrisy here. republicans, who are going to take tens of millions of dollars from special interests. today, marco rubio, said that he, unlike hillary clinton will not be bought off by special interests and said in the next breath he hopes to win over the brothers. it definitely complicates her message. they're trying to say there's no doubt they're there. we're being attacked by partisan

interests. she's a champion for the middle class. that's her message. >> examine that's what she's saying today. do you think what she said today is going to spice, is there going to be pressure to hear more from her? >> i think what they're going to do is not hit the doubters. what they want to do is discredit the attacks, discredit the sources and muddy the waters enough that this becomes an issue that the average americans are going to -- they basically want to turn this into benghazi. it excite tess right, but doesn't really break through to democrats, independents. that's where they want to bring this issue to eventually. so they don't want the story to be "new york times" versus hillary clinton. they want it to be the new york versus hillary clinton. >> all right.

thanks for your time today. appreciate it. >> thank you. coming up, a little football related who done it might actually be solved. that's coming up. stay with us.

okay. 90 active volcanos. more interesting facts, over the last 24 hours, there have been two eruptions in southern chile from a volcano named calbucco. this after 40 years of being

dormant. the eruptions sent smoke and ash six miles into the air. the authorities have evacuated thousands of people who live within 12 miles of that volcano. eruptions have been so big that ash is falling into neighboring argentina. and authorities say they're expecting an even bigger explosion to happen soon. the first eruption occurred wednesday, shortly before nightfall. the second went off this morning just before sunrise, providing us with this image of volcanic lightning in action. never seen that before. it's incredible. we'll be right back.

this is the week for football champions at the white house. on monday, the president congratulated the buckeyes of

ohio state on winning the first ever college championship. and later today, the president congratulated the new england patriots on their dramatic super bowl victory over the seahawks. usually these are pretty formulaic. the president makes a speech, the team gives him a jersey with the number 44 on it and then the team poses for pictures. although today not everything the president said went over so well. >> i usually tell a lot of jokes at these events, but with the patriots in town, i was worried that 11 out of 12 of them would fall flat. all right, all right, all right. >> belichick liked that one. the deflate gate controversy in which the patriots had allegeds that they tampered with the football during the games. an alleged it should be noted

that still has not been proven. that gave rise to two great moments in history including the night the theory that 1 1 footballs could be deflated in two minutes inside a bathroom stall. then there was the talk of bill belichick and tom brady violating the first law of rachel maddow's sports relations, always call a football by its name. >> i'm not squeezing the ball. i don't -- that's not part of my process. >> each team has the opportunity to prepare the balls. i don't want anyone touching the balls after that. i don't want anyone scrubbing them. to me, those balls are perfect. >> but after obama's deflate gate joke, there was another weird moment. it happened between the president and patriots tight end rob gronkowski. >> gronkowski just being crone cowsky.

he's not making rabbit ears back there, is he? the president was talk there about something that happened earlier this week when the other championship team, the ohio state buckeye webs got their photo open. someone that time gave the president bunny ears. it's hard to figure out which of these guys it was. most journalists who wrote about the bunny ears figured it was michael bennet who is standing behind and to the left of president obama in that picture. gq magazine in their write-up pointed their finger at grant. was it actually his hand? several trms staffers spent way too much time this week trying to crack this case starting with the videotape. there's the hand. it's healthy, but still, it is hard to tell whose hand it is there. so the mystery continued until yesterday and that is when the prime suspect, michael bennet,

copped to it on twitter. and he apologized, saying he meant no disrespect to the president. and today, i'm going to guess all is forgiven as the president appeared to take no offense. that does it for us tonight. to guess all is forgiven as the president appeared to take no offense. up next, "first look." >> good morning. right now on "first look," breaking news overnight. multiple injuries after high school musical went wrong. and president obama taking responsibility for a u.s. drone strike that killed two western hostages. a new report that bruce jenner may have begun his transition soon after winning olympic gold a tragedy involving a member of the everybody loves raymond cast and much more on this final april friday. good morning. breaking overnight terrifying moments at an indiana high school. a stage collapses during a musical. ♪