you wouldn't buy a motorcycle without handlebars. no thanks. and you shouldn't ride a motorcycle without geico insurance. roadside assistance, 24 hour service, great rates. geico motorcycle. see how much you could save. >> this sunday, a devastating earthquake in nepal leaves at least 2,000 dead. we'll have the latest. also, the drone war. >> we all bleed when we lose an american life. >> an american accidentally killed. is our drone war immoral or the only effective way to take out terrorists without endangering american lives. plus, same sex marriage reaches the supreme court, again, and perhaps for the final time. i'll be joined by two former bush-gore foes who joined forces to fight for marriage equality. and hillary clinton's cash

controversy. how damaging will these new stories be to her candidacy. finally, washington obsession with itself. >> feels right to have a woman follow president obama, doesn't it? my interview with the white house correspondent dinner emcee. >> joining me, asa hutchinson, doris goodwin, cooper of the "new york" "new york times," and matt bye of yahoo news. william welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." >> from nbc news in washington, this is "meet the press." good morning before we get to all the week's politics and the discussion of america's drone war one story is dominating headlines across the globe this sunday. desperate rescue efforts are underway after the worst earthquake to hit nepal in more than 80 years. it struck near the capital, katmandu. the death toll is now over 2,000.

it includes 17 climbers who were killed by avalanches on mount everest. one nepali journalist said this, the sadness is sinking in. we have lost our temples our history, the places we grew grew up. let's go to richard engle. he's in katmandu this morning. >> reporter: it is now a city where people aren't living inside their homes. every green space has been taken over. people are afraid to go into their homes, to sleep inside their homes. behind me is one of the biggest parks in the city. but it is not just this park. people are sleeping and cooking with their feels on the sidewalks, in the middle of the streets. they are afraid there could be another major earthquake or just more of the aftershocks. we felt today one of the aftershocks when we arrived. it happen just as we land at the airport and we were going through immigration. suddenly the building started shaking. the immigration officers ran outside for cover. then they came back. i think people have been amazingly calm in the several hours we've been here. we've seen people quite

resilient, taking it with a take it as it comes attitude. there are still foreigners in the city and they don't have -- their situation isn't much better than the people who are living in the parks behind me. the hotels are operating at a status of kind of semi-evacuation. the hotels aren't kicking out their guest. they have nowhere to go and there aren't any flights out of here. so the guests are stuck there. but they don't want the guests to go up to the rooms, especially in the upper floors. the guests are sleeping in the lobby, in some of the lower hallways. mostly they are sleeping in the gardens and in the parking lots in front of the hotel. we don't know how long this is going to last like this. people -- i've been speaking to in the park think they might be here several more days. maybe a week. but it is not just here. there is the even more mysterious situation on mount everest. some climbers have been evacuated from mount everest.

several, at least 17, including some americans, have been killed. but i think we'll only be learning more about exactly what happened on mount everest as those survivors come off the mountain. they can be debriefed and teams can go in to see what happened. >> richard thank you. now to the other big news of the week. one of the most striking changes in american foreign policy under president obama has been a major escalation of drone strikes on al qaeda targets in pakistan, yemen, and somalia. and controversy about americans who have joined al qaeda have been targeted and killed. in fact we learned of the latest instance this week when the white house revealed that two american al qaeda leaders and two hostages, one italian and one american, had been killed in drone strikes in january. yet no one in government used the word drone strikes and politicians from both parties have been strangely reluctant to even talk about the issue. >> we all bleed when we lose an american life.

we all grieve when any innocent life is taken. >> the who, what, when, where, why, and how are all still murky. on january 14th, american aide worker warren weinstein kidnapped in 2011, an italian, giovanni la porto held since 2012 were killed when an alcove was hit by a cia drone strike. another american, a al qaeda commander was also killed. on january 19, a second strike killed an american -- al qaeda's top spokesman, adam gudan with a million dollar bounty on his head. >> he was not specifically targeted. >> the problem in these and other instances is that the cia doesn't always know who it is killing. targeting only al qaeda leadership. two years ago president obama pledged to scale back the drone campaign. >> before any strike is taken there must be near certainty

that no civilians will be killed or injured. >> reporter: but so-called signature strikes have continued. that's when the cia fires a missile based on a pattern of behavior of people on the ground even if it does not know who i killing. of the 3800 people killed by drones since 2011, 11% have been -- 12% have been civilians. john brennan said the deaths are overstated. >> a lot of these stories you hear about, in terms of oh, my goodness hundreds of civilians have been killed. a lot of that is propaganda put out by the elements opposed to the u.s. coming in and helping. >> reporter: just 14% of pakistanis view the u.s. favorably. meanwhile in washington this week, and on the campaign trail a deafening silence. rand paul staged a 13-hour filibuster two years ago to protest u.s. drone policy. this time, his campaign issued just a sentence. it is a tragedy that these hostages lost their lives. my prayers and thoughts are with

their families. a reminder of the collective reluctance of washington to question president obama's covert war. >> i'm joined by tom, who was in the room when the president made key decisions about the drone war in the early part of his presidency. these two strikes killed two hostages that the cia was unaware of and two al qaeda operatives that the cia was unaware of. how does that happen. >> with respect to the operations, that the president declassified on thursday the two operations you talked about, in the first case there was a determination made that these were military facilities against which action should be taken. that was the result of hundreds of hours of surveillance, all kinds of analysis and red teaming and that assessment was true. these were enemy facilities, al qaeda compounds as the president disclosed. they were frequented by al qaeda leadership and therefore

legitimate military targets. that assessment was correct. the president also has publicly stated the framework under which we make determination about collateral damage or the killing of innocents. in this case it was wrong. the standard that the president put in place is very high, near certainty that there won't be death or injury to a civilian. >> this didn't meet those standards? >> the protocols were followed, as i understand it. the standard whether or not this was a military facility, where al qaeda operated out of and was a threat to our forces was accurate. it was a tragic unintended consequence here because the hostages were held at one of the facilities we took into action. what the president said here is we should take another look because it was a tragic accident. >> you say that the protocols -- there were new protocols. he announced all of these in may

2013, almost two years. but it doesn't seem like many of the new protocols have been implemented. he wanted to refine and repeal the war resolution itself to have to deal with this. new protocol for the drone program. reduction, reduced drone strikes by the end of 2014. this was done in 2015. obviously, i think the goal was when the afghanistan war was done and the withdrawal complete the drone program would maybe completely end or nearly end and move from the cia to the pentagon. obviously we didn't withdraw from afghanistan. why didn't we move to the pentagon? where you would have real congressional oversight. >> we have oversight of those operations. >> there is? >> that is correct. >> a lot of people don't belief that. >> there is oversight over these programs. number two the framework is in place. indeed the standard by which the government makes a judgment as to whether or not to take a strike is near certainty, as to

whether or not there will be injury to a civilian. in this case that protocol was followed and it turned out to be inaccurate. the president asked for a review in this circumstance as to why that turned out to be inaccurate. but there is no doubt about the effectiveness of these programs or the necessity of these operations. >> you don't think these drones of killing terrorists with drones, unmanned, isn't making more terrorists? >> well -- >> that has been a concern for some time. you don't believe that happened? >> i don't think that is the case. this is what i think is the case. comprehensive effort by the united states against al qaeda and its leadership has resulted in a safer america. that in fact we have been able to decimate al qaeda's leadership, that we've been able to reduce the threat to our forces in afghanistan and our interests around the world and in the united states. my own judgment is that absent these operations like the president described on thursday, absent these kinds of operations, a comprehensive effort against al qaeda there would have been further action against u.s. interests perhaps

at the homeland. i don't have any doubt about that. >> let's talk about the constitutional rights of the two americans turned al qaeda operatives. the legal situation here is murky. according to the president they didn't know they were targeting, that these two individuals would be there. had they known these two americans turned al qaeda operatives were there would the strikes have happened? >> let's go through the analysis. these two al qaeda senior operatives were not targeted. >> had they been known to be there, would this drone strike have happened? >> let me go through it. they were not targeted. what was targeted was the afghanistan facility in the war theater. secondly, an american citizen who goes abroad and wages war against the united states as the president said in his speech may 2013 does not get a shield against action by the united states. >> no due process. >> no more -- well we don't know it's an american. it's an action against an enemy facileity

facility. in the example the president gave no more than a sniper firing on a crowd does not get immunity or a shield against being taken out by a s.w.a.t. team in the united states. they were not targeted. they were in the military facility. if the united states decides to take action against a american there are additional protections the president laid out. that was not the case here. >> had we known there were americans there the drone strike would have been at least delayed until they got the proper protocol. >> there would have been a review -- an additional review by the attorney general justice department, with respect to ensuring the constitutional statutory rights of those individuals were protected. >> final question, do you believe this was an intelligence failure? >> this is not a raid against a military facility. it was based on hundreds of hours of intelligence.

and the assessment that it was an al qaeda compound in the military war zone was correct. secondly, with respect to the near certainty standard, with respect to not having civilian casualties, in that case here it turns out not to be correct. and that's why the president asked for a review. >> but is it a failure in intelligence. >> i said the protocols were followed and it was accurate with respect to whether or not this was an al qaeda facility. but in fact there were hostages being held there. now, it is difficult to know that obviously. i spent a lot of time for example, working on the hunt for bin laden. it took us years over the course of two administrations to find him. this is a very tough business. and if you are looking for again, as tragic as this was, two things, this is very important to protecting the united states and secondly and if you are looking for accuracy you are not going to find it in the war setting. >> thanks for coming on "meet

the press." i'm now joined by mike zenko, an expert on drone warfare. mr. zenko, welcome to "meet the press." let me ask you this. the drone program as it stands now, is it as necessary and successful as you heard it outlined by mr. donnellin just now? >> that outline presumes the assumption that the united states must be continuously using military force against a wide away of militant and terrorist organizations. once you start with that assumption, i would say the binary policy choices the white house presents is you can either have a massive military occupation like iraq or you can conduct your own strikes in which case they become particularly wise and ethical. i would say that the real question is why is it that the united states has been conducting these strikes since november 3rd 2002, 50 under president bush.

365 under president obama. and the groups that the united states has been trying to defeat or eliminate either stay the same in size, grow, or move to other countries. the real question is, how effective has this been as part of the comprehensive strategy that mr. donnellin claims the united states has employed. >> what is the unintended consequence, do you believe, of being able to engage militarily without -- basically with robots, with a robot, with a drone, without any potentially risking blood and treasure when it comes to a military hit? >> compared to all other weapons platforms drones have inherent advantages. they can persist over targets for long time. they are responsive in terms of putting a munition on top of a facility or a car or an individual. obviously, i don't place u.s. service members at any degree of risk. subsequently since the u.s. first had this capability it significantly lowers the threshold for when policy makers

will authorize the use of force. there have been 425 drone strikes in pakistan. no president would have authorized 425 manned aircraft raids into pakistan. or special operators raids. it's the capability that changes the calculus as to when officials will authorize the use of force. >> is there an alternative to drones that will be easier to sell to policy makers perhaps that are skeptical to what we are doing and frankly somewhat -- i don't know if you call pakistan as a full-fledged ally but to keep an ally like pakistan from being too upset about it? >> again, you are assuming the united states must be using military force. once you made that assumption, the drones become the preferred method. the question is how are these being used and coordinated with the other elements of national power? president obama had a fascinating observation the other day when he said we need to stop thinking about

isolation and counterterrorism and think about education. that's great to realize six years into his administration but we seem to fall back on the default tactic as the method we use these strikes. unfortunately, drones have become the face of u.s. foreign policy, not just in the countries where the strikes occur, but around the world. >> right now, the u.s. is the lone country using the drones as much as it is. what happens when other countries start using drones for their own military use? >> these are proliferating slowly. but other countries have deployed them in some instances. the british, the israelis as well. but president obama has correctly stated that the united states is setting precedents and principles that they hope other countries will adhere to. the problem is that the absence of clarity or transparency in these precedents or principles and the clear fact that the outlined guidance that president obama put forth in may 2013 is

not directly guiding u.s. policy -- there is a gap between how the u.s. justifies the use of drones and how they actually employ them. if other states follow that perceived hypocrisy gap i think that will be devastating for foreign policy interests and global security in general. >> mike, i appreciate you coming on "meet the press" and for sharing your views. >> thank you. >> when we come back, the legal odd couple, they are fighting for same sex marriage. the case hits the supreme court on tuesday. putting it off. it's daunting. what if i make the wrong choice? it's like, if i buy a t-shirt and then change my mind i can return it. but a car? you don't reeeaaa eeeeeaaaaaly know until you've driven it a few days. i just want to be sure. ♪ ♪ as long as people drive cars carmax will be the best way to buy them.

♪ if you're looking for a car that drives you... ...and takes the wheel right from your very hands... ...this isn't that car. the first and only car with direct adaptive steering. ♪ the 328 horsepower q50 from infiniti.

if you want more of the 2016 presidential race, and let's face it, you are watching "meet the press," so you do, right. you can have your daily dose, delivered right to your in box with our latest offering, the lid. all the analysis and insights from the nbc news political unit and it's even funny. to sign up, head over to your website. i promise you won't be disappointed. later in the broadcast washington's big self centered night. i got to catch up with snl's cecily strong. moments after her performance at the white house correspondence dinner. >> i feel like i can hardly remember what happened when i was there up. so i'll probably watch it later and go oh i thought that went really well. >> "meet the press" is brought to you by morgan stanley, where capital creates change. it took tennis legend serena williams,

fencing champion tim morehouse and the rockettes years to master their craft. but only moments to master paying bills at chase.com. depositing checks at the atm and transferring funds on the mobile app. technology designed for you. so you can easily master the way you bank. ♪ turn around ♪ ♪ every now and then i get a little bit hungry ♪ ♪ and there's nothing good around ♪ ♪ turn around, barry ♪ ♪ i finally found the right snack ♪ [ female announcer ] fiber one.

welcome back. on tuesday, the debate over gay marriage heads to the supreme court again. where the justices will hear arguments on whether individual states can constitutionally ban same sex marriage. 11 states in the district of columbia have passed legislation to make same sex marriage legal. another 25 have been forced to legalize it by court decision. at the same time, there has been a dramatic change on public opinion on the issue. in our latest wall street journal poll 59% were in favor of same sex marriage up from 45% just five years ago. my next two guests david boys and craig olson played a crucial roll in a landmark case that

overturned california's ban in proposition 8. they were old foes having faced off in bush versus gore, that famous supreme court case the 2000 election. they are authors of the book "redeeming the dream" the case for marriage equality. welcome back to meet the press. >> good to be here. >> david, let me start with the prop 8 case. why do you believe the supreme court stopped short of basically making it law of the land and only targeted california? >> i think there is a logical legal reason, and perhaps a policy reason. the legal reason was because under supreme court precedent, the people who were appealing that decision really didn't have a standing. they weren't injured. they weren't adversely affected by it. they simply had a political point of view that they thought these marriages ought to be banned. so from a legal standing, constitutional standing, under

supreme court precedent, they really didn't -- shouldn't have been there. now, there may have a policy to reinforce that, which was to let the progress develop a little bit further. at that point, we still had less than half the country with marriage equality. now overwhelmingly it has taken over the country. so just in the last couple of years, you've seen a tremendous movement that i think makes it easier now for the supreme court to make that total decision. >> mr. olsen, is it possible that the supreme court could basically -- i hate to use this phrase -- split the baby, say that all 50 states have to recognize same sex marriages but individual states cannot issue licenses? >> i don't believe that's going to happen. the -- as david pointed out, when our case, the proposition 8 case came to the supreme court, the next day the court heard the defense of marriage -- the federal defense of marriage case. they were both decided the same day. what the supreme court said in

the defense of marriage case, which was called the windsor case, was that the laws like the federal statue that restricted rights of individuals who wished to get married to the same person was demeaning, it disrespected their relationship, it took away their constitutional rights. if you read what the supreme court said in that case, there is really no other way for the supreme court to come out in the case that's up for argument on tuesday. the first part of that case is whether states have to recognize the rights of individuals who wish to get married in that state. i think that will end the debate right there. >> seems obvious. going to the states rights argument the federal government going no, no, no, you have got to recognize the way it works. >> what the supreme court said in the federal case, they mentioned states' rights but they were talking about the impact on the individuals in a relationship and the children of those relationships, how it took away their rights, it made their

relationships less equal, second class. and those sorts of things -- and we don't do this in this country. we don't take away the rights of individuals and put them in a box and save it there less equal than other people. >> what about the -- and you hear this argument from the right that says okay same sex marriage is going to become constitutionally legal if the supreme court does this, then can you constitutionally ban polygamy? i mean, you know this is where this is going to go. how do you constitutionally ban polygamy. >> that's a silly argument. it really is. this has to do with equal rights. what you are saying is that you can't deprive a loving couple of marriage simply based on their sexual orientation. just like you can't deprive a loving biracial couple of a right to get married. supreme court held that many, many years ago. what you have in the polygamy case is a situation where you are going to have multiple partners. and there is all sorts of

evidence that that has harmful effects on some of the people participating and on the children. so there is a policy reason. more important, also a legal reason. that is you are not discriminating against anybody. everybody gets to have one spouse. as long as you don't restrict it based on race, gender, sexual orientation, everybody is treated equally under the constitution. what you can't do is say some people are second class so some people can marry the person they love, one man, one woman, but two men, two women, they can't get married simply because of their sexual orientation or their gender. that's what's unconstitutional about it. polygamy has nothing to do with it. >> in the case we tried sexual orientation is immutable characteristic of an individual. choosing to have multiple spouse is a choice. it's not a part of an innate characteristics. so we are discriminating because of sexual orientation. polygamy has nothing to do with it.

>> swing vote or votes on this issue? playing political pundit here. >> if you look at the decisions the supreme court made, there is five votes, including justice kennedy, justice ginsburg, and justice breyer, justice sotomayor, justice kagan. as dave and i talked about this case we were hoping all nine justices would fall in line once the case was finally decided because of the inherent rights of individuals. i'm still optimistic it will be more than five years, but we can count the justices that already decided the defense of marriage case. and their explanation for why they decided that. >> does it matter if it's 5-4 or 6-3? does it have a different impact? >> i think civil rights cases ought to be decided 9-0, 8-1, the way racial civil rights decisions were largely made.

>> it became a fact the public then said -- >> exactly. it sends a message that this country doesn't tolerate discrimination. so i think the more justices that sign on, the better. but we have got to look at windsor. i think it is really hard to see how the majority justices would decide this case any differently. on the other hand, it is hard to figure out for sure that you can get any one of the four that didn't. >> thank you for coming on. >> we bring in the panel, the republican governor of arkansas, asa hutchinson, dorris goodwin, alain kieran. mr. hutchinson, do you believe, you are also an attorney, i believe, do you believe there is a line you can draw between saying the federal question is states have to recognize versus the question of whether states have to authorize? >> todd, i thought your arguments were persuasive in a previous discussion.

i think there is a way the court can do that. if you look at the windsor case that was spoken of, it was not just how gays were treated that was part of the decision. but it was also a deference to states' definition of marriage. that's been historically a recognition by the supreme court. what has changed, the constitution hasn't changed, but a lot of things have happened in the state courts. a majority of the states that have moved toward recognizing gay marriage has done it through judicial fiat versus the legislative process. so the courts really are forcing this issue as to what the supreme court will do. i think it is a little bit unpredictable. i think they could continue to give some deference to the states. but i do think that we'll probably have to clearly recognize what happens in another state. and so we'll wait and see. but as governor --

>> this became interesting for you. you put it in personal terms. your son -- this is when the religious freedom bill that you were going to sign -- your son petitioned you to veto the bill. and you yourself said you know what, on same sex marriage, this is a generational divide. >> it is. it is a divide politically. it is a divide geographically. i'm from arkansas. arkansas has a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. that's my conviction, that's my belief. but i also recognize if we talk about this issue, we need to talk about it in terms of tolerance. we need to talk about it in terms of nondiscriminatory policy, the diversity of the workplace. that's the point i was making with my son, that it is a generational divide. >> of course you are a historian. of course, of course. any movement in history moved as fast as the acceptance of same

sex marriage. >> only a decade ago president clinton signed the declaration of same sex marriage act. then vermont, and other states following one after another. i think what it suggests is something really important about our civic life. where does prejudice and discrimination come from when one group, one class, one race or one people with sexual orientation has little to do with the others and they project them and tier yo -- stereo type them. gay people are working together, their children are going to school, they are part of the neighbor. it is harder to say they are other. and you begin to feel a sense of their desires, their passions. that's what makes a healthy civic life of i think it is a wonderful remark not just about guy marriage or gay rights but about what can happen in a society when we stop being behind able to barriers. it is a good thing. >> as tribal as we have been on the politics, you can argue this issue has been driven by young folks. >> very much so. what's also very interesting is

i think so many move -- i think so much of this is experiential particularly when you look at politicians. you see people coming out and say, actually i was opposed to this until my son came out and told me he was gay. >> rob portman. >> i think that's been one of the driving forces. as soon as you can put a face on on issue that before had been esoteric to a lot of people the movement it's there. >> a quick presidential politics question on this. we will get this decision in june. i think the assumption is that it's likely going to end up legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states. a year from then the republican party is going to meet and make its decision, are they going to have a constitutional amendment in their platform banning same sex marriage. >> i think it depends on who the nominee is.

as i said before here and elsewhere, the republicans are on the wrong side of this obviously, it's moved much too quickly. really they have put themselves in a very bad position. honestly, if we are honesty about this, no one in the political establishment should be patting themselves on the back in either party. one of the reasons it moved so quickly is because the public -- >> dragged them. >> hubert humphrey walked out of the 1948 election because of civil rights. there is no hubert humphrey in this political race. the republicans are making this an issue that's going to set them back for years to come. >> speaking of politics, coming, up, the clinton foundation money. is this latest story a major problem for hillary's campaign or is it much ado about very little?

i love making sunday dinners. but when my back hurt, cooking all day... forget about it. tylenol was ok, but it was 6 pills a day. but aleve is just 2 pills all day. and now, i'm back! aleve.

this is an allen family production. and here's why we love chex. one, choices like chocolate, vanilla and honey nut. two, no artificial colors or flavors. three..it's gluten free. chex. full of what you love. free of what you don't. you could sit at your computer and read all about zero-turn mowers. click. scroll. tweet. or you could just sit on a john deere z435 eztrak and feel its power. you'll know it'll get the job done fast. when it's time to pick a mower you've got to get on one. visit your local john deere dealer for a test drive today. sign up to take your turn on a z435 and save 100 dollars on your purchase. nothing runs like a deere. welcome back. we are two weeks into the hillary clinton presidential campaign. republicans and journalists have been working themselves into a frenzy over a new book on the clintons that's about to be released.

it's called "clinton cash." alleges a too-cozy relationship between donations to the clinton foundation and clinton family speaking fees and decisions made by hillary clinton's state department. let me bring in the panel to discuss how damaging they all think this is. helene, let me start with you. the allegations, there is a and c. there's been an argument, okay, the trouble is how do you prove the connection, "new york times" your paper did a big story on this russian issue having to do with uranium purchase. there is not a connection but there is the appearance of impropriety. >> that it's biggest problem. it takes us back to the 1990s. it feeds this aura a lot of people have about the clintons. we've gone through six years with barack obama. you haven't had that atmosphere, that aura there is something going on. people are talking about the lincoln bedroom again. people are talking about -- i don't think this is necessarily

that huge a deal, but i think that this feeds a problem she is going to continue to have. it brings up again the sort of why didn't they see this earlier? why didn't they take steps to associate themselves -- soon as she left the state department she went back to accepting the clinton foundation that had distanced itself from this and went back to taking some of these donations. why didn't they foresee this? everybody knew hillary clinton was going to run. >> that's mind boggling. matt bai, jonathan chase no conservative pundit, this is what he wrote, "all sorts of unproven worst-case scenario questions float around, but the best-case scenario is bad enough. the clintons have been disorganized and greedy. the news this week about the clintons all flushes out about their lack of interest in policing serious conflict of interest problems that arise in

their overlapping roles. >> what a happy coincidence as a publishing schedule and news cycle. i don't think any one was voting for hillary clinton or is going to because of the threat she poses to the governing status quo and the political establishment. does it hurt her with her voters, that perception? she is not the reformist presence a barack obama was and is. i do think as helene says, it's the arrogance of it. i think it's something that, the e-mails, the idea you never admit guilt, you never say you're sorry, you kill the messenger. tear everyone down. >> they have this whole say that say it's a hatchet job masquerading as a book. it is a standard play book. >> it is a standard play book. the idea you have to fight ten times harder. that it's old line about bringing a knife to a gun fight? i think that doesn't wear well in presidential politics and

particularly doesn't wear well when it's something people are already concerned about. >> doris, eight years ago, democrats were hammering publically about this. this time they are doing it privately. i heard an earful last night from various democrats, some who work in the clinton campaign that said why is she still taking foreign donations? why is the foundation -- they narrowed it down, now they are going to take them from european countries in canada. they got rid of some of the despot states. that's the stuff that boggles the mind. they're afraid of speaking out. >> i think what still boggles the mind, why doesn't hillary deal with this herself right now. when you have mitt romney saying this is bribery, bribery means theft, robbery means taking favors to do something corrupt. you can't let that charge stand and simply say, it's the wrong people telling it. when teddy roosevelt was assumed similarly in 1904 giving favors to big corporations and promising he wouldn't do anti-trust, he gave up. everybody said don't say anything. he stands up and says if this charge were true, i would be

infamous. this would be a terrible thing. it's false. it's wickedly false. that ended. he said you give me evidence. no evidence. he comes off with flying colors. i think she has to answer this herself. >> governor hutchinson, you're from the clinton's home state. they had accusations thrown at them and politically always survived. do you think this time it's different? >> does it impact her base, impacts the middle. it reminds everyone that everything about the clintons is complicated. this story has three ramifications that bear looking at. awful, ungodly amount of money involved in these transactions. it involves a foreign source. then it involves high positions in government important decisions. no evidence of a quid pro quo. republicans need to be careful not to overstate the case. it reminds us that clintons are complicated. they tend to make mistakes. >> it will be interesting to see

how much more of this happens before democrats go as public as they did when i was talking to them last night. when we come back, on this weekend of political satire, one of the greatest of all time, "doonesbury" garry trudeau coming up. many sheets per spill... the roll just disappeared. i knew i should've bought bounty. bounty is 2x more absorbent and strong when wet. just look how much longer bounty lasts versus one of those bargain brand towels. and that's a good deal. bounty. the long lasting quicker picker upper and now try new bounty with dawn. available in the paper towel aisle. does all greek yogurt have to be thick? does it all have to be the same? not with new light and fluffy yoplait greek 100 whips! let's whip up the rules of greek! success starts with the right connections.

introducing miracle-gro liquafeed universal feeder. turn any hose connection into a clever feeding system for a well-fed garden. miracle-gro. life starts here. you show up. you stay up. you listen. you laugh. you worry. you do whatever it takes to take care of your family. and when it's time to plan for your family's future we're here for you. we're legalzoom, and for over 10 years we've helped families just like yours with wills and living trusts. so when you're ready start with us. doing the right thing has never been easier. legalzoom. legal help is here.

welcome back. if you don't know garry trudeau you definitely know his work. he is the pulitzer prize-winning cartoonist and the creator of the comic trip doonesbury.

earlier this month, you may have heard about him for a different reason. while accepting the george polke award he criticized some of the work that appeared in the french magazine "charlie hebdo." they were victims of a terror attack in january this year. he said the cartoons wandered into the realm of hate speech. i started asking him about those comments and whether as some critics alleged about him, he felt the victims were to blame for the tragedy. >> oh, not at all. i think perhaps i should have made it clear i was as outraged as the rest of the world at the time. i mourn them deeply. we are a very small fraternity of political cartoonists around the globe. i created a tribute page to them on a sunday section in which i

included the work of all five cartoonists including their signatures and main characters. what i didn't do is necessarily agree with the decisions they made that brought really a world of pain to france. >> is religion the red line for you? is that the issue? >> not entirely. i certainly wouldn't draw pictures of the prophet. i've done many cartoons satirizing terrorists the taliban, al qaeda, plo through the years, and never received blowback from the muslim community. they understand i'm separating out the two. >> let's talk about doonesbury. what was the impetuous? was it watergate?

vietnam? >> i don't know what it was. my career was not my idea. it was the idea of an editor who picked me out of my student newspaper my junior year and gave me the job i still hold. i don't know what he was thinking. i didn't have the skillset most people would associate with creating a comic strip. i think he liked my perspective. thereafter, because i had been doing it in college, i had no editor. i had no clear sense of what i could do on the comic stage and what i couldn't. so i was constantly being kicked out of newspapers. >> where does it belong? i remember growing up where there would be some newspapers it was in the funnies and "the washington post" famously put it in the "style" section. >> or the editorial page. >> where does it belong? >> i feel it belongs on the comics page for very selfish reasons that's where the readers are. jack anderson used to insist his column appear on the congress page of the "the washington post" because that's where the readers were.

in the early days, the red lines were less clear to me. i did something incredibly inane. i put together this questionnaire with a checklist and sent it out to a dozen high-level editors around the country. i said, which of these subjects do you think are appropriate for the comic stage? abortion, marijuana, politics rock and roll. >> what year did do you this? >> i was probably 22, 23. it was an inane thing to do. most of them bit. most went for it and checked the boxes. i guess you could write about marijuana. but no on abortion. they sent back these questionnaires. i got a letter back with no questionnaire that says it makes no difference what you write about, as long as it has a purpose and it's funny, there is no limit what you can do. that is something i should have figured out on my own.

but i was young. >> you can watch my entire interview with garry trudeau and hear more about doonesbury and how hunter s. thompson was a huge inspiration for him, and why he tells young cartoonists why they might want to consider a different path. >> up next the star of last night's correspondence dinner. >> i look amtrak here. it was more luxurious. they have massage seats available on the trains. all you need to do is sit in front of joe biden.

take zzzquil and sleep like... you haven't seen your bed in days. no, like you haven't seen a bed in weeks! zzzquil. the non habit forming

sleep-aid that helps you sleep easily and wake refreshed. because sleep is a beautiful thing. bring us your aching... and sleep deprived. bring us those who want to feel well rested and ready to enjoy the morning ahead. aleve pm. the first to combine a sleep aid... plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. for pain relief that can last until the am. so you... you... and you, can be a morning person again. aleve pm, for a better am. people ship all kinds of things. but what if that thing is a few hundred thousand doses of flu vaccine. that need to be kept at 41 degrees. while being shipped to a country where it's 90 degrees. in the shade. sound hard? yeah. does that mean people in laos shouldn't get their vaccine? we didn't think so.

from figuring it out to getting it done, we're here to help. endgame time. some of our panel are bleary-eyed this morning. last night was the white house correspondence dinner. helene didn't have to party because "the new york times," they want no part of that dinner. there were some fun highlights from president obama and cecily strong. >> after the mid-term elections my advisors asked me, mr. president, do you have a bucket list? i said, well, i have something that rhymes with bucket list. take executive action on immigration? bucket.

i've got to stay focused on my job because for many americans this is still at the time of deep uncertainty. for example, i have one friend just a few weeks ago she was making millions of dollars a year and she is now living out of a van in iowa. >> it is great to be here at the washington hilton. it's something a prostitute might say to a congressman. hillary's campaign slogan is, it's your time, which is what i assume she says in a mirror while dead lifting 200 pounds. after six years in office your approval rating is at 48%. not only that, your gray hair is at 85%. your hair is so white now, it can talk back to the police. >> right after her stand-up routine i caught up with cecily strong to see how she felt about this performance. grade the president last night? >> in my -- i think he always

does very well. especially in that world. when he is making a speech and being funny, that's what he does really, really well. >> i heard this from other comedians, they say the single hardest person to follow is the president of the united states. >> i heard that. >> did you feel it? >> i did. it was really good, wasn't it. they were really liking him. >> he tells a joke, did you say, oh, geez, crossing that one off the list? >> i kept checking in with my writers. i would go, should we keep it, cut it? there were two i chose to cut. >> you seemed cool as a cucumber. >> i think i'm a good faker. i always have been. somehow. i don't know how that's worked out for me. it's like maybe of the best thing i have going for me i honestly, i feel like i can hardly remember what happened when i was up there. i don't even know. i'll watch back and be like, oh, i thought that went really well. >> will you watch your

performance? >> i think i would watch this one. i would be curious. honestly, i couldn't gauge it. >> will you do it now? >> no. i won't do it now. i'll start drinking now. then i'll start thinking later. >> let me bring in the panel. a few of you were there governor, do you think -- what do the folks in arkansas think of this washington festivities, whatever you want to call it, oscar night in washington? >> peculiar. probably not the best politics to be here. >> right. it's going to knock you down on approval rating or two? >> you never know. you salute the media. journalists are doing an extraordinary job in a dangerous world. secondly, it's the time to really salute the president and it's a lot of irreverence. at the same time, you have washington coming together. if washington comes together, it's not a bad thing. >> doris, there's always been hammering, my own colleague tom brokaw feels the thing has gotten too big. i missed when it was a

washington dinner. when our friends in new york and l.a. got involved, they are the ones that made this dinner too big. what do you think of that? >> i think there was something when it was just the correspondents and the media. who is the star running it? nonetheless, there is something about the self-deprecating humor everyone wants to hear. my favorite moment was somebody said to lincoln you're two faced, he said if i had two faces you think i would wear this face? >> that would have killed last night. >> think also that here was a woman emceeing, and 50 years ago, women couldn't go to the white house correspondents dinner until jfk said he wouldn't go unless a woman came. we made progress there. >> four ever, but two in the last five years. it's real progress. >> why are you asking me this? i'm not allowed to go.

>> you got to watch it. >> you had your fun prom. you get all dressed up. i thought obama was really funny. i love the praying five times a day line. >> it is funny. he always does a muslim joke and it always kills. >> matt, your favorite part of the night? >> i hate the whole thing. >> i hate the whole thing. did you go? >> he went. >> jobs program for the low-rent tux industry in washington. i think this president is probably the funniest president of our lifetime flat out, whatever else anyone thinks about him. great comic timing. it's fun to see him talk. >> george w. bush was funny. >> the problem is he did something funny then everybody got mad at the funny, the whole wmd thing. >> that wasn't funny. >> it wasn't funny then then he got afraid of trying to be funny again. you guys are great. i appreciate it. that's all we have for today. we'll be back next week because as you know, if it's sunday,

it's "meet the press." action packed. dramatic. and, well what can we say about this? you may think the u.s. is the caught on camera capital. but check out what the explosion of cameras in cars and all over the place has meant in russia. >> when i see a new video from russia, it's like christmas morning. you never know what you're going to get when you open the box. >> intense crashes that make you do a double take. wild road hazards. dangerous heights. and shocking