simone-freedman, thank you both for joining us tonight. really appreciate it. >> thank you, lawrence. >> thank you. is the united states about to invade texas? let's play "hardball." >> good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. in parts of this country, people don't live in eminent fear of invasion, and certainly not by forces of the u.s. government. they don't see black helicopters leading an advancing army set out to disarm, silence, and enslave them. and then there is texas, where some fear the federal invasion is already set for this summer. the politicians down there are talking darkly now. that coming with the hot months is an all-out u.s. army assault in bringing the lone star state to its knees, smashing away its

rights and bringing the texas people itself into war-time captivity. in this latest chapter soon to arrive in this country's paranoid history, the politicians down there are pandering to the idea in texas that a u.s. military training exercise called jade helm 15 has, as its real design, a mass scale federal invasion of the state that has been part of the union of course since the texas republic joined up with us in the 1840s. last week setting worries about safety and constitutional rights, greg abbott called in the state's guard, he said to address concerns of texas citizens and to ensure that texas communities remain safe, secure, and informed, i am directing the texas state guard to monitor operation jade helm 15. and over the weekend, ted cruz said the pentagon assured him that his own government's military was not invading texas, but that doesn't stop him from playing carnival barker for the

conspiracy theorists. here he goes. >> you know, i understand the concern that has been raised by a lot of citizens about jade helm. it's a question i'm getting a lot. and i think part of the reason is we have seen for six years a federal government disrespecting the liberty of the citizens. and that produces fear when you see a federal government that is attacking our free speech rights or religious liberty rights or second amendment rights, that produces distrust as to government. when the federal government has not demonstrated itself to be trustworthy in this administration, the natural consequence is that many of the citizens don't trust what it's saying. >> and texas u.s. congressman louie gohmert put out this sugar mum of a statement yesterday. quote, patriotic americans have reason to be concerned. i was rather appalled that the hostile areas in the exercise amazingly have a republican majority. the tone of the exercise needs to be completely revamped so the federal government is not intentionally practicing war against its own states. where do we go with this one?

howard fineman, who can handle anything, has to handle this one. director of "the huffington post" and david corn is the washington bureau chief with mother jones. gentlemen, two of my favorites. i don't know where to start, except there are parts of this country represented well by the way by louie gohmert. and by the way, we're going get to the fact that there are actually some surprising hero downs there who actually say this is crazy. >> well, it seems like governor abbott, louie gohmert and ted cruz are turning the lone star state into the loon star state by going ahead and basically -- this stuff percolates on the conspiratorial right, which sometimes -- >> when did you hear of it first, that there was going to be awes army invasion which is actually an exercise. >> alex jones who is a 9/11 truther and believed in fema concentration camps and goes after the bilderbergs. and had ron paul on his show. and ron paul over and over again was really pushing this hard. and then it kind of jumps into the bloodstream of the more mainstream politicians.

and ted cruz and greg abbott get out there. they have this sort of ruse. we are responding to the concerns that people are saying. it's not like these people are crazy and we're going to tell them they're crazy. we're responding to the concerns. but by doing that and saying we're going to have the texas guard, you know, monitor this, you're basically ratifying people's concerns about something that is completely made up. >> howard, you react though. the put out a press release announcing the jade helm training exercise in march. last month they sent one of their commanders to a texas meeting in bastrop county down in texas to explain the purpose of the military exercise to the local citizenry. it didn't go well. >> first and foremost, we're truly invested in everybody's personal rights and their privacy. that's what we live for. we live to support the constitution of the united states. and that's what everybody wants to live by. and that's what we're here to

do. >> and if i told the colonel that i didn't believe a single word that he just said. >> when we have a federal government that cannot tell the truth, how do we know that what you're saying is true. [ applause ] >> may have issues with the administration, so be it. okay. but this institution right here has been with you for over 240 years, period. >> it is a preparation for martial law. >> that's because it is not a preparation for martial law. >> that's what you safe. >> that's what you say. howard, i don't want to get into regional attitudes by us three northerners here. >> oh, go ahead. >> yeah, go ahead. but this is crazy. and the people down there in louie gohmert's district, looked like a bunch of people in the room that were hooting and hollering, saying the feds are coming. the black hawk helicopters are coming. he is saying we're not invading your state. chris, i wish i could laugh about this.

i thought it was an exceedingly sad and memorable moment when that military officer looked to his chest and held up the insignia of the u.s. army, the name u.s. army and appealed to people's belief in that, if not the administration of the united states of america. not the federal government per se. it's easy to laugh about this stuff, but like david, i'm sure i've covered many races in texas. i've been all around texas. and texas is the home because of its history, it's the home of -- it along with south carolina are the two homes of the sort of rejectionist front of the federal government in the united states. and that attitude hasn't completely disappeared. and texas is the place where it's nurtured like in a hot vat. and people like ted cruz and rand paul, by the way, who

similarly didn't dismiss this totally and make fun of it, those two guys are responsible in my mind. they don't have the guts to stand up there and tell those people to pipe down. they're going to feed it. they're going to feed it with everything they've got because they're going after 10,000 voters on the right in places like iowa and south carolina. >> so they're pandering. >> they're pandering big-time. >> let's take a look at this. we're going to bring if right now todd smith. he is a republican from texas who served in his state legislature for 16 years. he says governor abbott is pandering to idiots. thank you so much for joining us, mr. smith. we were watching that group of people there. maybe they are a strange lot of people. but everybody on camera range there was acting like they really thought they were having the wool taken over their eyes there is going to be a federal military invasion of texas this summer in that military exercise, and this loyal lieutenant colonel lastoria who is working to try to explain what is happening is lying to them.

>> yeah, it's certainly a concerning trend in the state of texas. having served in the legislature for 16 years, i have had the opportunity to observe personally as the primaries have changed from the george w. bush primaries that i was originally elected into, into something that he wouldn't recognize today. it is embarrassing. it is humiliating. and for it to be coming out of the governor's office is what prompted me to write a letter so that people understood that there are some thinking republicans that find great offense with what is happening and being said. >> i got one for you. former governor rick perry has emerged as a rare voice of sanity in this debate. here is what he told reporters just yesterday. >> you know, i'm one of these guys i think it's okay to question your government. i do it on a pretty regular

basis. military is something else. you know, i think our military is quite trustworthy. the civilian leadership, you can always question that, but not the men and women. >> i love that. i think he looks better in glasses, by the way. but the fact is saying you can mistrust the government all you want. but does anybody think the united states military, the army? it's fairly nonpartisan, is coming to invade? >> it made me think well, obama might want to do this, but the army won't let it happen. >> that was subtle. >> but at the same time, texas is a state now that gets more federal spending than federal taxes it pays. so right now it's getting more out of the federal government than it kicks in. and it's worried about being invaded? >> that's a good marxist analysis. >> none of it makes any sense. >> let me go back to mr. smith. mr. smith, when i see the picture of the woman in that room in the town hall, she is laughing. i just wonder.

some of the people are more sober, more scared maybe. the people when they say the army is coming, the black helicopters are coming, to collect all the guns and silence people, do they mean that actually, or is it some sort of metaphor they're talking in where they mean a slow erosion of our rights? or do they really mean the government is coming in with helicopters and armor and the infantry? what do they think is going to happen here this summer? >> you know, i can't tell you what is going through the most extreme elements' minds. but what i can tell you is the people of texas, the overwhelming majority of texans are not concerned about that. what is a concern is that a tiny, tiny, tiny extreme faction of the state is gaining greater and greater influence in republican primaries to the point of influencing the governor's office. you know, dealing with cranks has always been a part of running for office. but it's sort of the numbers and

the extent of it that has changed in the last 15 years. >> howard, your thoughts about this. you're taking it seriously. >> yeah. >> and i guess there is comedy in this because i did see that woman laughing. i wonder whether this wasn't just one good carnival she was attending. >> i think there is something to what you're say, chris. about the emblematic nature of it. and i think that's part of it. but no. i think the disaffection, the disillusionment, the alienation from the federal government, even as david says while taking money from the federal government as well, that's very real. this is the distilled -- this is the distilled essence of it. >> yeah. >> but it pervade as whole lot of republican party rhetoric today in what used to be called the mainstream republican party. and people like ted cruz, forget about the governor. he is not running for president. i'm look at people like ted cruz who is in the united states senate, and rand paul who is in

the united states senate, both of whom are running for president. both of whom are running presumably to be president of all the people, and to become president of the very institution that they're sowing fear and distrust about, the federal government. that's always been a pattern in american politics. but this is taking it to a dangerous extreme when you're basically saying the united states military is against you and is going try to lock you up. that's a huge paranoid theme in right wing literature. it's been that way for 50, 75 years. and it's come back around again in a way we haven't seen in a long time. >> i want to appreciate both of you guys coming on. but i want to especially thank todd smith coming from fort worth. that republican party you speak of the party of james baker and george herbert walker bush is still alive. good luck in taking back your party down there. coming up, deflategate. that's what we're calling it. the national football league finds that some personnel on the new england patriots likely did deflate those footballs on purpose on the way to the super

bowl. that's the big story breaking this afternoon. i know it's sports. we are going to cover it because it's about a big fascination with this country, the super bowl. and that tom brady probably knew about what is going on here. so what is the league going to do about the fact that the star quarterback of the super bowl winning patriots actually knew that they were deflating the balls to his liking against the regulations, if this is all true. plus, hillary clinton is talking like a progressive on domestic issues and less like a classic clinton democrat. this a statement of ideological change on her part, or smart politics by a candidate catering to all the needs of the democratic constituency groups so they don't go looking elsewhere for a candidate? and wouldn't you knott, ted cruz is blaming president obama for not stopping that terror attack in texas. finally, let me finish with the news, the new england patriots quarterback. tom brady as i said probably knew the game was being rigged. this is "hardball," a place for politics. your kids get used to sweaty odors in their room. they think it smells

fine, but you smell this... eliminate all the odors you've gone noseblind to with febreze fabric refresher. mmmm... so you and your guests can breathe happy. boy: once upon a time, there was a nice house that lived with a family. one day, it started to rain and rain. 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. get flood insurance. visit floodsmart.gov/flood to learn more. you know, in any job any profession image matters. i want some gray...but not too much. only touch of gray uses oxygen to gently blend away some gray but not all for that perfect salt and pepper look. satisfaction guaranteed. just you and the look you want. just for men touch of gray

i'm page hopkins in new york with breaking news. tornado warnings are in effect for parts of the oklahoma city metro area. tornadoes have already touched down, and we have this report from our nbc affiliate kfor just moments ago. >> you're looking at it right now, mike. i've got debris lifting out toward me, past me now on 36. we've got a lot of tree damage. i've got debris blowing in towards the tornado. this is going to be heading toward the water tower on the north side of rock creek. power flash, large power

welcome back to "hardball." the nfl released the findings of its investigation into the new england patriots' deflategate controversy today, and the news isn't good for the super bowl champions and their star quarterback tom brady. in january, the nfl found 11 balls used by the patriots in

the afc championship game were deflated below league regulations. in effect, brady had an advantage gripping the ball. the report concluded today it is more probable than not that new england patriots personnel participated in violations of the playing rules and were involved in a deliberate effort to circumvent the rules. wow. and the report found, quote, based on the evidence, it also is our view that it is more probable than not that tom brady was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities. the report cleared the team's head coach bill belichick and the team's senior management. it found the two men, a locker room attendant and an assistant probably released the air from the balls. jim mcnally is seen prior to the game taking the bag of balls into a locked bathroom for nearly two minutes, enough time according to the report to deflate them. according to a report again, last year mcnally boasted in a message to his colleague, quote, that he was the deflator. the deflator. what does this mean for tom brady and the patriots? rob simmelkjaer is host of

"sports matters" on nbc the shift, and cindy boren. thank you both for joining us. let me go to you, cindy. what is going to happen? is there any chance they'll take back the super bowl victory? >> that sounds like a lot of somebody who bet on the seahawks to win. no, i don't think so. troy vincent is in charge of the football operations for the league. he'll decide the punishment. you'll notice this isn't roger goodell. this is troy vincent deciding what will happen. he can punish them by suspending brady, by fining him, you know, fining him is not really going to accomplish a lot. >> what does it mean to you? you care about sports. what does it mean -- i mean, anybody who has ever thrown a football knows there is a difference in how much air is in it, how easy it is to throw it. you get it just right, you can throw it good spiral maybe. but you can't if it's too blown up, it's hard.

>> tom brady and peyton manning in 2006 created this rule whereby the home team would supply -- each team would supply its own footballs before the home team did. well, it's pretty clear that there was a reason for that. these guys know what they want. they know exactly what they want. and the equipment managers, the guys who take the new footballs and get them ready for that. they're the ones who break them in, rub dirt on them and all that. so the idea that these two guys would do this without the awareness of tom brady is according to ted wells and his group preposterous. >> well, back in january, we all know, this everybody whether you follow sports or not, tom brady denied knowing anything about what happened to those balls. let's watch him. >> are you comfortable within yourself that nobody on sunday on the patriots side did anything wrong? >> i have no knowledge of anything. i have no knowledge of any wrongdoing of -- >> you're comfortable saying nobody did anything wrong? >> yeah, i'm very comfortable saying that as far as i know, i don't know everything.

i also understand that i, you know, was this the locker room preparing for a game for five hours. i don't know what happened over the course of the process with the footballs. i was preparing for my own job and doing what i needed to do. >> rob, it seems to me he was familiar with the word "process." i always thought watching that, it's like clinton, when he said i had no sexual relations. it seemed a little odd when people speak when they're not quite wanting to tell it all. i had no knowledge of the process. but he did know about the process. what did he know logically? wouldn't he want the football to be the way he wanted it? >> well, listen, chris, there are text messages in this report that are reproduced that if you believe the messages and the messages that were being sent at the time when they didn't know there was any controversy, these two clubhouse attendants, one said i talked to tom about this. he didn't like the fact that the ball is too inflated.

this is going back to a regular season game against the jets earlier this year. so these text messages make it pretty clear that tom brady not just for the afc championship game, but previous games this year was aware of efforts to deflate the footballs, not just to a level that he liked, but to a level that was below the standards set by the nfl. so that is why ted wells' report says it's more likely than not that tom brady knew about this. so this process he is talking about, apparently included a point when the clubhouse attendant snuck away with the balls into a bathroom, took out a little needle, and deflated the balls. that's part of this process. >> cindy, what i found interesting is when they were talking back and forth, these characters, they're talking about well, i'll give him a watermelon, like a big heavy football, or i'm going to give him a balloon, a real softy. so they knew all about the texture, the whole feel of a football. >> they know what he wants. every equipment manager for every team in the nfl knows exactly what the quarterback of

that team wants in a football. and they clearly knew what brady wanted. now there is no actual smoking pressure gauge that leads right to tom brady. but, you know, the wells committee found that it was pretty clear. >> let me give you a shot at it, rob. what is the consequence of this if it gets out that it's accepted as fact that this commission report is true, that the team manipulated the pressure on the ball, they took advantage to give themselves an edge. they basically rigged that game, the afc game and maybe other games. is this going to put an asterisk next to them in the record books? will this go in the history books? well that. >> won the world championship, but there was that penultimate game where they were playing a little bit of hanky-panky there with the pressure gauge? >> listen, thing are two consequences. one, i think the nfl will discipline the patriots. i think we'll see a fine. i think we could very well see draft picks taken away. i think we could very well see a suspension given to tom brady going into next year. i think those things are all very much on the table. but i think, chris, to your

question, the longer term issue for the patriots is the brand of the patriots, the legacy of the patriots. and even though bill belichick is not implicated in this report, this is still another example of playing fast and loose with the rules under the bill belichick regime. they were found guilty in the spygate case a few years back of spying on other teams with video cameras on the sideline and looking at their signals. and this is now another example of the patriot way as it's called in new england, being a way that is a little bit edgy with the rules of the game. and i think that's something they're going have to live with for the rest of this bill belichick era. >> just my guess, but front page of the top of the seattle and a boston newspapers are going to be all over this. this is not a sports page story. this is a-1, top of the fold, front page. this is going to be huge in those cities. and i bet the seattle fans, and that's the whole western united states, because i went to the super bowl, are going to be ripped over this thing.

they're going say they should have won the whole thing. thank you, rob simmelkjaer and cindy boren. up next, the warhawks are still trying to kill the deal. this is "hardball," the place for politics.

welcome back to "hardball." senate leaders are now trying to outmaneuver senator tom cotton of arkansas's efforts to basically kill the nuclear deal with iran cotton is clearly not happy with that. here he is. >> if you don't want to vote, you shouldn't have come to the senate. if you're in the senate and you don't want to vote, you should leave. as a senator from florida said yesterday, be a talk show host. be a columnist. >> well, that senator from florida he spoke of is senator marco rubio, a republican candidate for president who is equally peeved apparently that his iran deal amendment is being blocked. >> if these negotiations keep going on, we're going to end up building the bomb for them at the rate it's going.

>> joining me right now is someone who knows a lot about the senate, the middle east and getting deals and agreements accomplished. former senator and former senate majority leader senator george mitchell, author of the new book "the negotiator." and welcome back to "hardball." senator, thank you so much. and for my people and your people, thank you for what you did in northern ireland. nobody thought that could be done. and it looks like it's working. they don't love each other, be the property assistants and the catholics are getting along wonderfully thanks to you. let's look at the middle east which is a real conundrum. it seems like president obama is at great risk is trying to find a deal to contain the apparent ambitions of the iranian government, the mullahs to build a nuclear weapon. is it going to work? >> i think it can, although we won't know for sure until we see the final terms of the agreement, particularly with respect to verification. but the issue is very clear. iran must not get a nuclear weapon. there are two ways to accomplish

that, by negotiation or by war. it's plain common sense to try to negotiate an end to it if you can before turning to the extreme and what should be the last resort of a war. the interim agreement accomplished a great deal more than the critics believed it would. remember, when it was announced, the critics said it was 100% sellout to iran, that iran would not comply with the terms of the agreement. now ironically, many of those same critics are saying let's keep the interim agreement in place. now the argument they're using which really doesn't make any sense is that the u.s. should walk away from negotiations, increase the sanctions, and iran will capitulate and come crawling back. that's a fantasy. it's not just the u.s. and iran. it's the u.s., russia, china, germany, britain, france on one side of the table and iran on the other. if they reach an agreement and

the united states congress derails it, there is no possibility that the other countries, especially china and russia will continue and increase the sanctions. so the sanctions which are the reason that iran is at the table, which are effective because they are universal, not just unilateral u.s. sanctions, will go from universal to unilateral. and therefore from effective to ineffective. and what they will accomplish is the exact opposite of what they say they want. iran then with a clear path to a bomb and the u.s. congress having sidelined an agreement that was entered into by six major countries in the world. >> take it a step further. i know you have done this in your head. i think the enemies of this deal, this negotiation want us to go that far. they want us to bomb iran, kill any chance of reproach between our countries for decades to come. this includes putin and the

hawks in israel and the hawks in saudi arabia. their biggest fear is that somehow iran will settle down, it will become a regular country, but powerful country. and it's in their interests that iran not become a powerful country, even if it's tamed. they don't want it to be powerful. they want us to be at war with iran and they want to try to destroy iran. tell me why that doesn't -- putin isn't any more afraid of an iran-american friendship than he is of a nuclear-armed iran. doesn't he fear most that? don't the saudis fear that? they're afraid of an older iran like the shah when we did get along with them? am i being an extremists in my thinking here? >> i don't know. >> because i think they're out for real troubles, the enemies of this deal. >> there may be some who believe that. i'm not sure that all do. one of the ironies of this situation is in the middle east there are so many overlapping, contradictory conflicts that you can't see what will happen if there is an outbreak of violence. that's why it's so important, i believe, for israel and the

palestinians to reach agreement on a two-state solution. that's why it's so important to prevent iran from -- >> hillary is president. she has a very good shot of being the nominee of the democratic party, your party. and she also has a very good shot of winning the general. will she stand up to netanyahu? because he'll still be there and try to get a two-state solution? >> oh, i think so, yes. in fact, she stood up to him and others when she was secretary of state on these issues, although keep in mind, we are friends and allies with israel. we are committed appropriately to israel's security and existence behind reasonable and defensible. and we are committed to their having a reasonable and sustainable sense of security for their citizens. our disagreement here is not over the goal. the goal is to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. that's very important. because an iran nuclear weapon -- >> yeah, it doesn't share our goal of a two-state solution. >> no, that's right. well, he is back and forth on

that. but on the issue of iran, we do share with the people of israel the view that iran should not get a nuclear weapon. the question is how best to achieve that. and i think the course that the president is following is the correct one. now, i believe it will come down in the end to the verification proceedings. the president of iran, the ayatollah khamenei have both said iran does not want a nuclear weapon. but the actions of the government contradict their words. so you can't trust them. that's clear. it cannot be an agreement based on trust. will the agreement contain verification procedures sufficient to satisfy not just the people of the u.s., but the other five countries and the people of the world that iran will do what it says it will do in the agreement. and that's one reason why the relief from the sanctions is conditioned in the agreement upon their compliance with the steps taken to prevent them from getting a weapon. >> it's clearly stated. thank you so much.

the name of the book, as you can see why, "the negotiator." thank you, senator george mitchell, the author. up next, hillary clinton seems to be moving to the left, or is she simply catering to the pent up needs of the democratic base, which are very pent up actually lately. 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.

make no mistakes, today not a sing isle republican candidate announced or potential is clearly and consistently supporting a path to citizenship. not one. when they talk about legal status, that is code for second class status. >> welcome back to "hardball" that was of course hillary clinton yesterday in las vegas calling out the republicans for treating immigrants as second class citizens. strong stuff there. she defended president obama's use of executive orders by the way when it comes to immigration reform and said she would go even further than he has to prevent hardworking immigrants from being deported. here she is. >> i will fight to stop partisan attacks on the executive actions that would put dreamers, including those with us today, at risk of deportation. and if congress continues to

refuse to act as president, i would do everything possible under the law to go even further. >> well, most people think that secretary clinton needs to keep that successful obama coalition of voters together in 2016 if she wants to make to it the white house this time around. a coalition of latinos, african americans, young people, and progressives alike. well, last week in the wake of the tragedy in baltimore, hillary addressed the treatment of african american men by the criminal justice system. here she is on that point. >> there is something profoundly wrong when african american men are still far more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes, and sentenced to longer prison terms than are meted out to their counterparts. we need to restore balance to our criminal justice system. now, of course -- [ applause ]

>> and when it comes to the hot potato of trade issues, hillary pushed for the president's transpacific partnership when she was secretary of state. here she was. >> we are also pressing ahead with negotiations for the transpacific partnership, an innovative, ambitious, multilateral free trade agreement that would bring together nine pacific rim country, including four new free trade partners for the united states and potentially others in the future. >> but last week this headline appeared in "the huffington post." hillary clinton opposes major obama trade policy. so is hillary clinton shifting to the left on public policy issues to keep the democratic base energized in april ryan, ryan grimm and e.j. dionne is an opinion writer with "the washington post." thank you all for joining us. jump in here. what is hillary doing to position herself to run for president that is different from where they were say in '92 and '96 and 2008?

>> well, one, we have a different time. we know this. but she's got to make herself stand above the present like she is going to do more. because everyone is attacking president obama. it's his record and her record as well. she is trying to say i'm going to go farther than this president has done, particularly when it comes to issues of trade and when it comes to immigration. and they're saying that they're not giving out all the information when it comes to trade. but they're saying what they're going to do is deal with issues of increased wages, also prosperity and security. and when it comes to immigration, this president has done as much hazy can do. that's what the white house is saying. so she is saying she is going to take it further. >> how do you do that without congress? >> i don't know. we're trying figure it out. and it is legal that she can do that, go beyond. >> yeah. ryan? >> earlier today we reported john podesta when he was at the democracy lines was asked about this, the chairman of her campaign. and he said can you make this go away? >> trade? the trade issue. >> the tpp, tpa. >> that's a pretty strong statement, but we don't want to take a position. >> right.

and he was just articulating what is the reality about the political situation that she faces here there is no upside for her in endorsing it. but if she condemns it, she alienates president obama and people who are supporting him. >> hard choices. >> hard choices. >> that's her book. that's what politics is about. making those decisions. >> can you make it go away. >> no democrat likes to deal with the trade issue. bill clinton when he ran waited way to the end of the campaign to take a stand on nafta. i was there that day when he gave his speech. he said he endorsed it. and almost everything else he said was critical of it. >> what happened to the democratic party? it used to be the conservative party was for tariffs and protectionism and the liberal party was for free trade. kennedy was for free trade. >> the loss of american jobs is what happened. the globalization. it's technology. it's globalization. but i want to say something about this movement of hillary clinton. the whole country has moved. when bill clinton ran for

president, he was coming off the dukakis campaign where he got a really hammered as what robbie showed in his video on being soft on crime. and we were getting out of a crimewave. everybody has moved to a new position and said wait a minute, those draconian penalties we put in way back then are locking up way too many people, particularly african american men for too long. that's a consensus position. same on inequality. she is talking a lot more about inequality. guess what? everybody has been talking more about inequality since occupy wall street, including the president. so i think she is shifting in a way that the party and large parts of the country shifted. and i suspected bill clinton were running for president right now, he would be taking some of the same positions he circumstances you know, chris, i think e.j. is right there. is this issue now with trade as it relates to baltimore and this magnifying glass on baltimore. >> no jobs for young men. >> right. and what happened in baltimore, this is something that the

clinton camp is trying to work with, in baltimore there was a place called sparrow's point, bethlehem steel. globalization and this global trade helped beth steel leave baltimore. and you had so many people who didn't have a college education, but a high school education, who wound up working at beth steel. once they lost their jobs, what do you do? now the clintons, excuse me, the clinton camp is saying that plays into their economic plan. and they are, again, for increased wages, security, and prosperity. but they say with their ten-point plan, they're going to figure out how to work this out. >> tell us how they're going to bring back jobs in the city. >> yes, that's true. >> i think that is the answer. >> yeah. >> we'll be right back. the roundtable sticking with us. next, ted cruz is blaming president obama for not stopping that terror attack in texas. he is blaming him personally. this is "hardball," the place for politics. ink it smells fine, but your guests smell this... febreze air effects works instantly to eliminate odors you've gone noseblind to. smells like a field of awesome in here. so you and your guests can

breathe happy. when a moment spontaneously turns romantic why pause to take a pill? and why stop what you're doing to find a bathroom? cialis for daily use, is 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. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use. insurance coverage has expanded nationally and you may now be covered. contact your health plan for the latest information.

we're back with the roundtable. april ryan and e.j. dionne. the fbi has yet to complete its

investigation now into sunday night's shooting in garland, texas. but that didn't stop republican presidential candidate ted cruz from politicking and politicizing the attack. in a statement to "the dallas morning news," senator cruz blamed the white house, of course, for not preventing the attack and likened it to the boston marathon bombing in the 2009 ft. hood shooting. once again as with nadal hassan and the tsarnaev brothers, they knew and didn't do anything to take care of terrorism. one of the gunmen by the way on sunday night's shooting, elton simpson, had been known to the fbi since 2006. he was charged in 2010 for having to join a terrorist group. he was charged with a lessor charge of lying to a federal agent. we have people that are angry at the world and ready to go kill.

they don't have to get any orders from overseas. this guy, ted cruz is blaming obama personally for what happened the other day in texas. >> there is a serious inconsistency with what ted cruz is saying, if you look at what he said all day long. the other thing he complained about was that the united states government or he flirted with the idea that the united states government might be doing some military exercises in texas. so on the one hand, he doesn't want the federal government to have anything to do with texas. on the other hand, he wants an omniscient government that can tell when somebody is self-radicalizing watching youtube or on twitter. the other thing that cruz won't want to talk about, there are two elements, radicalization and access to guns. this is texas. he has access to whatever weapons he wants to find. if there were background checks in place, you start to walk backwards and law enforcement finds out, this is not somebody we want armed to the teeth. >> this is the big problem we have.

we find a guy like this guy, simpson, is a troublemaker. he was going to go to somalia and join up. he lied and they let him walk with a lessor charge. can we take people we know having committed serious crimes and imprison them? that's what the right wing seems to be saying we can do, e.j.? >> i just want to underscore ryan's point. we are supposed to do absolutely everything to stop terrorism but we can never take a gun away from anybody, even if they have been convicted of a crime. there is a deep inconsistency. if you want to criticize the government, peter king was somewhat more responsible. peter king, who is a pretty hard line guy said, look, maybe with he should have more surveillance on somebody who was. >> let's take a look. good point. >> i do believe in having more surveillance of people in the muslim community, because that's

where the threat comes from. we, as a country, have to come to the realization this is a war we are in. you have to be respective of constitutional rights and you shouldn't have this strict interpretation. it is very reasonable in a time of struggle we have right now that a person who pleads guilty to a terrorism charge should receive more surveillance than the average person. >> when do you put the hard watch on the guy, april? when do you just begin to hover over the guy and watch his every move? >> you have to be very careful. you have to be careful of their rights. you have to be careful of profiling and you also have to watch them. >> peter didn't say be careful. >> he did not. >> he said, lean in on these guys. >> the first part was wrong. i think you can't just say, follow muslims around. there are millions of law abiding citizens. >> how about a suspect, somebody you think is going to do something? >> the last part was reasonable. >> you have to be careful. there is a fine line.

i am thinking back to a time, remember here in washington years before president obama. the gentleman who loosely termed that shot up the holocaust museum. he was being watched by federal law enforcement. he went off. >> and killed the african-american guy at the door to get in. >> so this whole situation has got to stop. >> fine line. where is the line? >> i don't know. this he have to work it out. >> somebody is dangerous. he makes it clear he wants to go to somalia to join the jihad and you know he is trouble but he is a free american. >> supporting terrorism is a crime. if the fbi suspects somebody is trying to participate in a crime, then they can legally investigate. >> is your vail the person. >> they have to have evidence to make sure. >> it is called harassment. april and ryan, thank you. this is a fine line. the key line of our lives looking forward. when do you go from fear of somebody to taking away their rights? ryan grim, e.j.dionne, thank you.

star quarterback, tom brady, probably knew that the game was rigged. you are watching "hardball." the place for politics.

if you want to succeed in business, mistakes are a luxury you can't afford. that's why i recommend fast reliable comcast business internet. they know what businesses need. and there's a no-mistake guarantee. if you don't like it, you have thirty days to call and get your money back. with comcast business internet you literally can't mook a mistick. i meant to say that. switch today and get the no mistake guarantee. comcast business. built for business. let me finish tonight with this. i had an uncle who whenever someone left his wife, ran off with someone or got caught stealing money, he would offer an all-purpose incan tation like everything else. some government screwup gets enearthed, it is like everything else. somebody does a below code job

on a bridge and there is a crash, it is like everything else. it was hard to argue with my uncle because there was on a little examination a common thread to all those stories. people find ways to let down the system, let down society, let down you, the person who wants things to be like they are supposed to be. so it is with the news, that the star quarterback of the new england patriots, the super bowl champs of the world, probably knew that some guy in equipment was letting enough air out of the football so that he, tom brady, could get a better grip and throw a better pass. our hero, to the extent he knew it was being done, knew what the game was. to whatever extent he was deflating that ball as being rigged. as my uncle would be saying right now, it is like everything else. another case of people cheating the system, of getting theirs as the expense of keeping the system honest. like cheating on your spouse and cheating on your taxes and embezzling on the company books. go ahead, say it doesn't matter but first, say it ain't so.

excuse me for living. i would just like to know if you did it. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. tonight on "all in". >> i believe that we need the assistance of the department of justice and the civil rights investigation. >> the mayor of baltimore calls for a federal investigation into her city's police force. >> as the police begin pushing back on the freddie gray charges as hillary clinton attacks left, my interview with presidential candidate, bernie sanders. what exactly is bill de blasio up to with a new manifesto for progressives? >> i think there is a earning for a set of solutions the state that banned banning fracking. deflategate is out. it looks bad for tom brady. what does the nfl do now? >> i am very comfortable saying, nobody did it as far as i know. i don't know everything "all in