good evening, i'm chris matthews. in washington i have to start clearing the air about the fight that we had last night right at top of the show. this is what i want to make clear. put aside every other aspect of the war we fought with iraq in 2003, focus on one incontestable reality. people with the bush administration said saddam hussein had a nuclear weapon. they said he not only possessed a nuclear weapon but had the ability to deliver it over vast stretches of territory. we know why they made that claim, why they said saddam had a nuclear weapon. they knew that a nuclear weapon in the hands of saddam was something no one could have the nerve to defend, and so they made the claim. they did what it took to make

their case for the united states to invade iraq. he's author of a great new book with lots to talk about, "the great war of our time." >> look, i know that there have been a lot of questions about iraq posed to candidates over the last few weeks. i've made it very clear that i made a mistake, plain and simple, and i -- i have written about it in my book. i've talked about it in the

past, and -- and, you know, what we now see is a very different and very dangerous situation. the united states is doing what it can, but ultimately this has to be a struggle that the iraqi government and the iraqi people are determined to win for themselves. >> her answer there varied only slightly from what she did write in the book "hard choices," quote in the book many senators came to wish they voted against the resolution, the war resolution. i was one of them. wasn't alone in getting it wrong. i got it wrong plain and simple. let's go to mike on this. i think one question. why did hillary clinton and the other democrats vote for the iraq war? >> so what i tried to do -- >> is that a question you're going to answer? >> no, i'm not going to answer. >> take the question like hillary does. >> i'm glad you're straight about that. >> because in the book what i try to do is not say whether it

was the right thing or the do. >> i'm not asking that. why did they go along with the case that was made? >> the context of the times which i talked about in the book was the united states of america had just been attacked. >> not by iraq. >> wait, wait, wait. 2,000 people had just been killed. >> not because of iraq. >> chris, you going to let me answer? >> i have to challenge each point because you're building a case that's irrelevant. >> hang on. the intelligence community was telling the president of the united states that saddam had weapons of mass destruction. >> let's talk english. did they tell him, and you were there, that saddam had a nuclear weapon which is what cheney and the rest were saying? here's what we said. >> cheney said nuclear weapon. >> chris, here's what we said. we said he has chemical weapons. we said he has a biological weapon production capability and we said he's reconstituting his nuclear weapons. >> that's not what dick cheney said. >> i'm telling you -- >> you're briefing these guys to no effect then. you're telling them one thing and they tell the country to sell their war. >> i'm telling you what we told

the american people. >> was cheney telling the truth? >> you've got to tell me exactly what they said and i can tell you -- >> just before the invasion in march of 2003, former vice president dick cheney said that saddam hussein had reconstituted nuclear weapons. here he is. >> we know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons and we believe he has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons. >> he has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons. is that true or not? >> so we were saying -- >> was that true? >> we were saying -- >> can you answer that question? >> that's not true. >> why did you let him get away with it? >> look, my job, chris -- >> you're the briefer of the president on intelligence, the top person to see what's going on. you see cheney make the charge he has a nuclear bomb and makes a subsequent charge he knows how to deliver it and no one raised their hand and said that's not what they told hem, right? >> what's your job? >> my job is to tell the truth. as the briefer. >> okay. go ahead. >> it's to carry cia's best

information and best analysis to the president of the united states and make sure he understands it, right? my job is to not watch what they are saying on tv and say -- >> do you think it's a joke that cheney -- >> that's not my job. that's not my job. i wasn't paying attention, i was studying -- >> you're briefing the president on the reasons for war, they are selling the war using your stuff saying you made that case when you didn't so they are using your credibility to make the case for war dishonestly as you just admitted? >> i'm just telling -- >> you just admit it had. >> i'm just -- >> they gave you a false presentation of what you said to them. >> on some aspects. >> he had a nuclear weapon. that's a big deal. >> chris, i'm telling you -- >> do you agree that he had a weapon when you knew he didn't? >> your thoughts about this? >> here's the other thing in mike morell's book that i think is relevant and that was a case where the vice president and his top aides, scooter libby, clearly was trying to distort the intelligence to make the case for war and that was on the question of whether iraq had a

role with al qaeda before -- and it was concluded there was zero connection and the vice president continued to make the case. >> you're asking the wrong guy. >> i'm asking the right guy. >> i don't know why he said it. hard to do it? >> he did this to get us into a war. >> the only thing can i tell you is what we were telling the administration. >> okay. >> let's go back to your book. there were senior administration officials, most significantly the vice president, who continued to imply that there were a current connection between iraq and al qaeda. this was inconsistent with the analysis, but the implications continued. all to the detriment of the american people's understanding of the truth. you're doing a good job here and dick cheney's chief of staff libby's attempt to intimidate a top cia official was the most blatant attempt to politicize intelligence that i saw in 33 years in the business and not the last attempt to do so. these are bad guys, taking the hard work you try to do as

patriots to try to give the best information on the threat we face and then they say it comes from you, and then they add to it their spin, it's in cahoots with al qaeda, and oh, by the way they got the weapon and they claim it comes from intelligence sources and it doesn't. that's dishonest. it didn't come from you. >> so what they were saying about the link between iraq and al qaeda publicly was not what the intelligence community -- >> why were they doing it? >> i don't know. you need to ask them. >> what do you think is the reason? do i have to tell you? to get us into the fricking war. >> i think they were trying to make a stronger case for the war. >> this is what i go back, always argue with the neo-cons and all these people and i tend to get along with them generally and they are wrong. i don't think the reason for the war was the intel. if it was, they would be satisfied with what you were giving them. they had to add to it because they had some other motive for the war. that's all i'm saying. if it wasn't the existing intelligence, what was the reason? if they didn't think he had a

nuclear weapon why did they say, it a motive beyond the evidence that you gave him? >> what i say in the book, my impression of the president of the united states, okay, what i say in the book is that what he feared, what he feared was we were telling him they had weapons of mass destruction, right? and we were telling him that they were providing support to international terrorist groups, not al qaeda, but palestinian terrorist groups who were attacking israel, okay. that's what we were telling him, that he had relations with those kind of terrorists. >> how was that a concern to us? >> hang on a second, and i think -- i don't know, but i think the president feared, number one, saddam using those weapons of mass destruction against us or, two, saddam giving those to terrorists and possibly those terrorists using them against us, and -- and the 9/11 context it's important here, right? >> but that argument is a digs honest argument because he's not assuming the american people will take the facts. he has to build from the facts and add to them. in other words, he didn't trust the case you guys made to him as justification for the war and he had to come up with his own case, connection to al qaeda and a nuclear weapon.

nuclear weapon, maybe too much in that world of the cia to know that. to the american people, there's only weapon they know you can't come back from. you drop the bomb, you drop the bomb. a guy uses nuclear or chemical -- deals with biological, especially chemical, you can deal with that. you drop a nuclear weapon, especially with this vehicle that they come up that they could deliver it here, you knew what they were up to. they were trying to get us into a war under false pretenses, yes or no? were they try trying to get us into a war under false pretenses? >> i don't know, i don't know. i told you what i wrote in the book. >> what would be the other conclusion other than that? >> what i just told you about. >> you can't just stand back and say i didn't know. give me any other interpretation of what they did. >> i just did. >> what would that be? >> they wanted to get us into the war. >> the president was looking at the facts, right? >> to get us into a war with iraq. >> can i say something? >> sure. >> what i said in the book is my interpretation of the president which he was concerned about iraq using these weapons of mass

destruction or giving them to a terrorist group. >> why didn't he say that? >> i thought that's what he essentially said. >> the administration put out two very clear messages. it was somehow going to be getting even with 9/11 because they were somehow connected to 9/11 and they had a nuclear weapon. those are the big cases. susan, your thoughts? >> i think it's true that there was a collection of reasons that both the vice president had for wanting to invade iraq and i don't think there was confidence that that case alone would get the american people and -- >> here's the point. you went beyond what you just said. here's bush, the president at the time, suggesting that iraq would threaten the country with nuclear weapons and that iraq might have the capacity to deliver that with drones. here he is explaining the hard case. >> the iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten america and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. we're concerned that iraq is exploring ways of using these uavs, with intent to target the united states. >> you already said they didn't have a nuclear weapon. did they have had a means for

delivering a nuclear weapon? did your intelligence say that? >> we were concerned about uavs. it turned out to be wrong. >> what is an uav? >> unmanned aerial vehicle. we had some information that indicated he might be trying to acquire these to use them in the united states. that intelligence at the end of the day turned out to be wrong but the president was exactly right to say what he just said because that's what we were telling him. >> yeah. >> i'm not here to defend the decision one way the other, right? i've criticized -- i criticized everybody. >> does it bother you as an american that your hard work and patriotism was abused? >> look, intelligence gets police sized all the time in this town, all the time in this town, on both sides, on both sides, and what our job is at the end. day is not to let that affect what we do, what we tell the president, that we call balls and strikes and we call it

straight. that's the job of an intelligence overs. that's what my guys did. when we were pushed on iraq and al qaeda, we pushed back. we were not pushed by the administration on our judgments on weapons of mass destruction. that is a myth, right. what we said -- >> they didn't have to push. they went beyond you? >> we were telling president clinton the same thing. >> let me explain my position as an american and why it infuriates me. i knew people in this business, very objective people who went for the war and we were arguing about it here because of the belief that saddam hussein possessed nuclear weapons and you can't argue with that. once you believed that, so the final piece of the sales pitch is what did it and to hear from you that that wasn't based on fact or evidence or any intel, that was just made up about why i'm so angry about this war. susan page explains me. i'm easy to explain. i think we got talked into a war by people not being honest.

up next,led u.s. operation to kill osama bin laden, mike morell wrote a great piece about that in the "wall street journal." is he right or is sy hersh right? i think he's right. we'll be back with more.

president obama is making history again, but this time it's on twitter. the president launched his twitter account @potus yesterday afternoon as he shattered the world's record of fastest time to 1 million followers. he reached the 1 million mark in less than five hours and the guinness book of world records confirmed it. the previous record belonged to actor robert downey jr. who reached 1 million followers 23 hours after he launched his twitter account last spring. we'll be right back.

tonight i can report to the american people and to the world that the united states has conducted an operation that killed osama bin laden, the

leader of al qaeda and a terrorist who is responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children. >> welcome back to "hardball." that was president obama, of course, the nights of may 1st, 2011. when the president and white house told us about the killing of osama bin laden is a lie. that's the allegation journalist -- investigative journalist seymour hersh makes in a lengthy report published in the london review of books. in his story hersh describes a massive and unprecedented conspiracy by the u.s. government and says we didn't find bin laden, the pakistanis told us where he was hiding. they even helped us plan and carry out that secret raid and then the white house lied about the raid's purpose and fabricated its details, even the burial at sea was a lie, hersh claims. i'm rejoined now by former cia director mike morell who recounts the hunt for bin laden as part of his new book "the great war of our time." hersh has charged that the pakistanis told us where he was. >> rubbish, rubbish. >> who is feeding sy this stuff?

>> here's what i think. i don't know, but here's what i think. who benefits from a story about the pakistanis telling us where he is, about the pakistanis knowing in advance what we were going to do and so it wasn't a surprise, it wasn't a failure of their military? >> they look more confident this way. >> look a lot more confident. >> they say the pakistanis helped us plan and carry out the raid and made sure the two helicopters delivering the s.e.a.l.s to fly in without raising alarming and they got them up the staircase to bin laden's quarters and even the electricity quarters were cut off by the isi, boy, that's authoritative. where is he getting this stuff? >> it's all wrong. >> who cut off the lights? >> it was a random thing. lights go on and off all the time in pakistan all the time. it just happens, right. >> let me ask you this and the one at burial at seat which is

the one that amazed me. why would we nod do what we said we did which was to show respect for body of bin laden to keep the islamic world pacified, if nothing else. >> i guess it would be we were angry and required revenge. his story would require the s.e.a.l.s to cut up the body on the return to afghanistan and throw it out of the helicopter. when the helicopters landed in jalalabad, the body came off. it was laid down. bill mccraven actually had one of his guys lay down next to it to see how tall it was. the president order proper muslim burial at sea. i saw it on video. sy hersh doesn't know what he's talking about. >> he charged that the president lids about the purpose and details of the raid, quote, the white house initial account claimed that bin laden had been brandishing a weapon. the story was aimed at those who requested the legality of the u.s. administration's targeted assassination program. later the white house claimed only one or two bullets were fired into his head were expletive, expletive.

no garbage backs full of computers and storage devices and went right through the whole list. >> yeah, he did. >> why do you think he said we shot him up rather than a couple of bullets? >> i don't know why he's saying this. he says he has a source, a former senior intelligence. >> not good enough for the "new yorker" magazine. >> he says he has a source who was in the room. he was not in the room that i was in. >> so just to finish it up. it says it happened as we thought it happened. you guys managed to find out because of a courier and what was going on. you snuck in basically and risked the lives of everything the helicopter going down, everything was the way it was told in the beginning. >> to believe sy hersh is to believe that hundreds of people are involved in a conspiracy. it's ridiculous. >> that's what i kept thinking, all the people in the room including billy daley and hillary clinton and the vice president keeping this secret. >> everybody. >> let's go back to something we might agree on, other big story of the day. we keep going back to benghazi. the state department said they will need until next january to release hillary clinton's e-mails, some thousands of them as secretary of state.

a federal judge ordered them be released on a rolling basis and today hillary clinton spoke to reporters about that news that the judge is pushing for the release. let's watch. >> so i have said publicly, i'm repeating it here in front of all of you today, i want them out as soon as they can get out. >> will you demand if? >> they are not mine. they belong to the state department, so the state department has to go through its process, but as much as they can expedite that process, that's what i'm asking them to do. please move as quickly as they possibly can to get them out. >> did hillary clinton -- this is the wide-owed accusation and i'll get to. it did she do everything that she could to save the life of her friend chris stevens? >> i believe so. i believe so. i wasn't there. >> their charge seems to be somewhere -- they sell this story like they are really trying to push the argument she went out to dinner and did

something else and derelict on her duties, that somehow she didn't really try hard. from what you know did she try to get military assistance to save his life when it was still possible? >> everything that could have been done to save those four individuals that night i believe was done, absolutely. >> and what's the case against that based upon, just politics? >> i think so. i think so. i mean, i'm stuck in the middle of this, too, as you know, absolutely. >> was there any chance of getting those planes from italy? >> no. >> at any time? >> i don't believe so and multiple committees of congress have concluded that, that nobody stopped help from coming to those americans that night, nobody. >> you know, i -- i don't know. i'm not her, the secretary. i would get on there tick, tok, here's where i was. >> i've got two chapters in my book on benghazi, two chapters, right, but i have to tell you i do think the executive branch should have handled this better by providing congress with all the information right off the bat. >> yeah. >> don't dribble it out. get it all out there. >> "the great war of our time," by michael morel.

thank you. >> thank you. >> important to read. >> thank you. >> we had a fight. we always fight. >> up next -- because i care. david letterman's last show is coming up tomorrow night and while we're remember the top ten lists they didn't shy away from politics. i was on that show one time, in fact right after 9/11. this is "hardball," the place for politics. 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.

ladies and gentlemen, here's the bashful, the taciturn, chris matthews. chris, come on out, buddy. ♪ how are you? welcome back. congress, 9% approval rating. >> it's very simple. ask yourself -- ask yourself and the audience what have they done lately? >> well, that was tough. welcome back to "hardball." he's been making us laugh for more than 30 years now. david letterman hosts his last late night show tomorrow night.

in the world of late night comics, letterman made us feel any hometown boy from indianapolis could poke fun at celebrities and politicians and do it right to their faces. lizz winsted is the co-creator of "the daily show." let's talk about something really serious which we were just talking about in my tough interviews just before this. 9/11, and letterman's reaction to it. he really rose to that occasion, i thought, afterwards. >> i do, too, and i felt like what he did was if you'll recall everybody panicked about what kind of joy we were allowed to have after 9/11, and i think dave really took the time and he was real -- he was amazing with regis, and he was so heartfelt about saying i'm not sure that what i've been doing all these years has been -- is living up to this moment, but i hope it is, and i really -- and i really want people to be able to come back to me, and he wanted to sort of be this voice, and

really after that time, his -- his monologues got a little more political and started poking more fun, and he really did take a look, i think, at world as a whole the way a lot of people did and a lot of comedians did after 9/11. >> well, here he is, david letterman, right after 9/11, a week later. >> watching all of this i wasn't sure that i should be doing a television show because for 20 years we've been in the city making fun of everything, making fun of the city, making fun of my hair, making fun of paul -- well. >> you know, it seems like it was -- reminds me of johnny carson, i watched another guy for 30 years, and carson never talked politics. nobody could read his politics like we can't read politics. i don't know what letterman's politics are and yet after robert kennedy, his neighbor at u.n. plaza right there in new york city on the east side, when bobby was shot down, he came on and just blew us away by saying we've got to do something about

handgun control, not gun control but handgun control and asked us all to write our congressmen and i did, and i remember that was so unique and i guess letterman, this was so close to home being in midtown at the ed sullivan theater right up the street basically from 9/11, why do you think it grabbed him as powerfully as it did, that moment? >> i think for letterman and for so many comics, i think we all did a self-assessment about what have i been saying? what have i been joking about? have you been -- have i been frivolous? have i been wasting my time asking people to watch me and not saying anything, and i think letterman just took stock like so much people did about what was the purpose of the monologue? what was the purpose of the jokes? and i think it's -- comedy is so powerful that it's almost -- it takes me aback to think that letterman didn't really even understand the joy that humor really brings. great old movie "sullivan's travels." >> oh, yeah.

>> i don't know if you've seen that movie, it's a great one, a guy is a journalist, 1939 and wants to follow the path of hobos and see what they are going through and really when he got into the lives of the people who were riding the railings and that were hobos at the time, they just wanted to laugh. their lives -- >> preston sturgis. >> they wanted to laugh. during the white house correspondents' dinner letterman let george w. bush secure himself. let's watch. >> here we go, number ten. >> number seven. number four. number three. and the number one favorite george w. bush moment.

did he just spit there? >> i think so. >> presidents aren't supposed to spit, at least not obviously. i thought the hoosier part was interesting, the country boy in a sense, the big, you know -- comes out with the big feet and colored socks on. there's something hick about him that i think he was selling, very effectively so. he wasn't a big-city guy. >> midwestern guys, carson from norfolk, nebraska and letterman from indiana, and i think what was so cool about dave was that he was the first guy to really open up that door of saying i'm a regular guy who is going to take the shine off of all of this hollywood bull hockey and real call people out and he did it in kind of an aw shucks way with a little bit of snark that let celebrities laugh at themselves a little bit, and as that developed you really saw so

much self-deprecation from people, you know, that oftentimes we would revere them and now letterman took the shine off of it, and i love that about him and it's always fun when somebody who you add mire and respect is the voice -- is your voice as the viewer. >> lizz, how about him telling jane pauley this sunday morning that we'll never see him again, like he's not going to write op-ed pieces and won't show up as a cameo in tv shows and won't be doing guest hosting and stuff, that he's made enough money, i guess, and he's just going home. that's unique. >> johnny did that, too. >> yeah, he did. he went home. >> and i think that that is a life fulfilled and that is somebody who said, in my mind anyway, did i something that's really great, and whatever my next chapter is it's -- it's gonna be to embrace some privacy, you know. when you haven't had it for 30 years, i'm sure he's yearning to just grill in his yard, spend time with his kid. >> i think you're right. >> i think the heart attack is another wake-up call in the series of things.

i think it was like i really want to go out with some love in my heart. >> lizz, i can see him in sneakers and going out and show up at corner store once in a while and that's his public and that's enough. >> that's right. >> thanks so much for that charming insight. i'm not always sarcastic, by the way. i meant that. up next, another big story out there today about hillary clinton. the "new york times" reports the republicans investigating benghazi want to know why old friend sid blumenthal was sending memos from the country while she was secretary of state. i'm not sure what the story is about. we'll find out what it is about. is there a there there? this is "hardball," the place for politics.

0 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.

he's often simply described as a clinton friend or confidant according to the "new york times." in the last clinton white house sidney blumenthal carved out a role for him including intellectual and press corps whisperer. when secretary of state became secretary of state he played a role of sort, albeit from the outside and he sent clinton a series of 25 memos from libya, a country where he had dealings. anyway, according to "times" mrs. clinton took mr. blumenthal's advice seriously forwarding his memos to senior

diplomatic officials in washington and at times asked him to respond. mrs. clinton continued to pass along the memos and much of the intelligence passed on appears to come from a group of business associates he was advising as they south to win contracts from the libyan transitional government, all in the piece in the "new york times." clinton was asked to explain her relationship with blumenthal just today. here's the secretary. >> should americans expect if elected president you would have that same type of relationship with these old friends that you've had for so long? >> i have many, many old friends, and i always think that it's important when you get into politics to have friends you had before you were in politics and to understand what's on their minds, and he's been a friend of mine for a long time. he sent me unsolicited e-mails

which i passed on in some instances and -- and i see that that's just part of the give and take. when you're in -- when you're in the public eye, when you're in an official position, i think you do have to work to make sure you're not caught in the bubble and you only hear from a certain small group of people and i'm going to keep talking to my old friends, whoever they are. >> well, let's bring in the roundtable, michael schmidt who broke that story for the "new york times" today, april ryan is the white house correspondent for the american urban radio network and michael steele is the former chair of the republican national committee and msnbc political analyst as well. is there something more to this that you're trying to get across here? what is the dark aspect of hillary clinton's relationship with sid blumenthal? there seems to be a dark aspect. what's wrong with it? >> left everything out there. four things, the foundation, the intel reports, the business on the ground and, you know, this ongoing sort of advisory. >> what does he do for her? >> that's what we really don't know. she seemed to be very receptive to it. the clinton people will play it down saying it was unsolicited. she didn't real want it, but these things came in

consistently over a two-year period of time. they were addressed directly to her, and they were very detailed and very long, and this is not just like oh, hey, i heard this at a cocktail party. let me tell you this. this is like i've got sources on the ground and this is the intel. >> is he a source for her or an operative because he's been described in different press accounts as an operative. does he do stuff for hillary clinton or just feed her information? >> i don't know. there was a lot of information coming in, and it was systematic. it read like cia cables. it was on the ground, sourcing, that type of stuff. >> what do you make of this, april, because i see names popping up like cody shearer and david brock, people all close to the clintons, operative in the sense that they certainly go out to her defense when there's a cries or a scandal looming. they are her friends and they are pretty tough about it. >> these are friends who have been friends for a while and it's loyalty with them.

>> what's friend mean in washington? >> loyal, the fact that she wasn't throw under the bus. >> what do they do for her? >> giving her an ear on the ground that she may not hear, that's what we're hearing. not all of the e-mails from blumenthal that were forwarded. that's what i'm hearing. kind of downplaying it. i'm hearing some of the e-mails were -- did not rise to the occasion to be forwarded but they are saying, you know, like any friend, again to downplay, like any friend he wanted to make sure she was aware being the secretary of state so the loyalty is, hey, i'm help you out if i can, even if i'm in another sector. a lot of people do it in washington. >> the "new york times" runs an "a" section story about a friend of someone who is a friend of somebody. >> it's deeper than that. it's much deeper. >> what is deeper? >> he felt he had information that could help her as secretary of state. >> how do you know this? >> i've got sources. >> did you talk to him? >> we invited him on the show? >> he was never a whisperer to me, okay, but i've talked to some people who are in the camp and who know that he was a friend to her.

>> what's that mean? you keep saying washington. >> friend, loyal. >> i hate that term in washington. he's a friend. >> they support one another. they understand one another. they understand -- >> what friends do. okay. people watching now think there's more to this than you're saying. >> this is a little different because he was being paid by the foundation. >> but he was sending the e-mails as a friend. >> let me tell you why this is hot within the democratic party and the liberal side of things, mike, who you're not too close to. >> please enlighten me. >> the only person that the white house rejected when hillary had her shopping list, had the complete authority to filled state with the hillary army people and this is one guy, this is how tough this is, more than friendship going on here. >> he is. >> he's in the army. >> the clinton arm? >> i'm not knocking it. there's an army there. >> i think he's a ground troop for her number respects. you're absolutely right. something that goes on in washington a lot of times. even in state government as

elected official, would you have friends who would send you e-mails and -- and write papers on this, that or the other thing, but the problem -- i don't know if it's a approximate but interest is the level, the degree. >> what's a whisperer? >> the frequency. >> what's a whisperer? >> you've got it in your piece, horse whisperer, press corps whisperer? does he get people to write columns he wants written? does he push stories with other journalists? >> never returned any of my calls. >> he doesn't whisper to you but you call him a whisperer? >> someone that goes out there and advocates off the record on background for his people. >> and what does he get out of it? >> he believes he can help craft the message and promote what people are writing. >> the whisperers are the ones who tell you pieces of the story that you would not normally find out. >> what's the motive for doing that? >> because they want to advance the piece that they want in the administration? mean, you've got a lot of factions will be the administration. >> he's in the in the administration. >> but i'm saying when you talk about a whisperer. >> we had -- you say it's common

in washington, april, to have people moving around who are real working for one political leader but are basically not on the payroll, not necessarily, but they are out there pushing the argument at dinner, over drinks, pushing the story all the time. >> yes. >> pretending to be independent but basically being -- >> i think this is a little different than that. >> tell me, i'm working here. >> i'm trying to learn what we're talking about. you put it in the paper. >> not like he's working on capitol hill and also advocating -- this is -- >> he's working the state department, that's what he's doing. >> he wasn't working at state department. >> they wouldn't let him. >> was work at the foundation, had other things going on. had a direct pipeline to her. >> what's so bad about it? >> i just -- i just report the facts. >> why did you report them? why does this have to be in the "new york times"? people are looking at us like we're a bunch crazy people. talking about some guy they never heard of, probably never will, works somehow for the clintons but not officially. we does something for the clinton, perhaps whisperer. >> that takes the veil off of washington and shows a lot of inner workings that people don't know. >> this is unusual. this is someone who had a direct line into hillary clinton and the average person outside the state department doesn't have that. people in --

>> who is a bigger deal with hillary clinton, david brock who runs media matters, will go after anybody that goes after her, cody shearer, a private eye, whatever, are they all important to hillary? >> i think so. >> got to know this. thank you. the roundtable is staying with us. up next, chris christie tries to pull a fast one. so what if two-thirds of the voters in new jersey don't think he'd be a great president. he says they just want him to stick around at governor. not so fast, governor. we've got the numbers to show they don't want you at home either. this is "hardball," the place for politics.

president obama is coming to the aid of an unlikely ally, the honeybee. today the obama straight announced steps to protect honeybees and other pollinators saying honeybee pollination adds $15 billion to america's agricultural crops in recent years. they have been on the decline in recent years and last year alone beekeepers reported losing about 40% of their colonies. we'll be right back.

we're back. new jersey governor chris christie sat down with megyn kelly yesterday up in new hampshire where he's exploring a bid for the nomination. here is a new quinnipiac poll that shows 65% of people in new jersey don't think christie would make a very good president. that's two-thirds. kelly asked the governor how he could run for the white house when his own state doesn't have confidence and he turned on the spin. take a look. >> the polls in new jersey say by a 65% to 29% margin the new jersey voters say you would not make a good president. now they know you the best. why shouldn't we trust them? >> they want me to stay. and i've heard that from lots of people in town hall meeting, don't leave to run for president. we want you to stay. >> they say you would not make a good president. >> people hear the question they want to hear. >> almost 60% have an unfavorable view of him

according to the quinnipiac polling. that's a 34-point drop from where he was shortly before his re-election in 2013. we're back with the roundtable. michael steele, this guy won't quit. >> he won't quit and it's that tenacity that he's going to need. you have the numbers coming out of the state, the fiscal numbers of the state he'll have to address and then all the other investigations. i think i have to give him credit, though, because he's dogged in his determination to create a new narrative or to at least get some spin on the narrative that's out there as you just mentioned. >> if you were clean of the bridge gate problem, if he were totally clean, where would he be now? >> definitely in the top three, i think. >> there's room for an east coast republican? >> there's a lot of room for

chris christie in this campaign. >> what do you think, april? is there room for an old-time rockefeller, or a tom ridge, eastern republican who is not a right-wing person? is there room for that? >> before bridge gate i thought there was. chris christie is the gift that keeps on giving. i also think his perception, he wants his perception to be reality but the reality is that, you know, can we remember al gore who didn't win his own election. >> who is paying for his travel? >> i don't know. >> who is paying for his hotel rooms? somebody is. >> who is voting for him? people may pay but who is going to vote? that's the issue. remember al gore. he did not win his own state. if the election were to happen today, hmm. >> he only had to win new hampshire to win the presidency. it was that close. how do you live by that, get up every morning, i could have been president for eight years but couldn't carry the people who know me most. >> he got a nobel prize, didn't he, for climate change? >> let me ask you about chris christie and his delusion. what is it? >> you have to run for president when you have a chance to run

for president and he had it. i'll be governor for a little more and get more experience. >> why did he do a sitdown with megyn kelly. she is on at 9:00, gets the biggest audience possible at 9:00. she does this thing where she plays her position but every once in a while goes for the basket with the tough question. the tough question. doesn't he know that he's not going to look good? >> i don't know why he wouldn't go on "hannity." >> that's easy. >> even going after the tough question -- >> maybe hannity is so easy it doesn't work. no power to it. >> he pivoted, he was able to move the question into what he wanted to address. >> speaking of positioning, how do you put 18 guys on the stage? this will be the first debate in august. it's going to be a party convention. i did the math. it's an hour and a half debate. five minutes each if the moderator doesn't talk. five minutes each for an hour and a half.

>> you cannot go into this. let's assume you have 15 people on the stage. >> it looks like 18 including donald trump. >> go with 18. you have 18 on the stage. >> i'll raise you -- >> you're going to give them 30 to 45 seconds for an opening and a closing. that takes care of that half hour of the hour and a half. and then for that hour you're not going to do a conventional i'll ask you a question and then you get to rebut. you'll go through and ask each of the candidates a question or two about specific issues or points. >> but no hand raising. i used to love hand raising. >> you can't keep anyone off that stage. >> there will be two or three tiers of candidates and it will be a fight. >> is the earth round or flat? at which point priebus says it's outside the rules. you've raised a lot of hackles. michael steele, as always. when we return let me finish

with character, having the courage of your convictions. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics. ♪ take me into your darkest hour ♪ ♪ and i'll never desert you ♪ ♪ i'll stand by you ♪ yeaaaah! yeah. so that's our loyalty program. you're automatically enrolled, and the longer you stay, the more rewards you get. great! oh! ♪ i'll stand by you ♪ ♪ won't let nobody hurt you ♪ isn't there a simpler way to explain the loyalty program? yes. standing by you from day one. now, that's progressive.

let me finish tonight with character, you know, having the courage of your convictions to go with your gut when the with wind is blowing against you. oh, how i wish i could see character in politicians today. what i see, what i hear through

the noise is an auctioning off of souls. i'm seeing politicians say what they're saying for a benefactor. everything they them to do everything they want to do, a person we used to call in the '60s a pig. that's what i see today. the people we used to call pigs want is what they wanted in the vietnam era, wars. you can bet on that one. and they want, of course, low taxes and regulators off their backs. they want old rich people not to worry about estate taxes. i'd like to see some character out there, wouldn't you? wouldn't it be great for some of the republican candidates to stand up to the money guys and say if you want -- find yourself another patsy. now that would be a case of character he and that's "hardball" for now. that's for being with us.

"all in with chris hayes" starts right now. tonight on "all in" -- >> i made a mistake, plain and simple. >> hillary clinton enters the iraq debate on the trail. congressman barney frank on the question of knowing what we know now. then, how nicki minaj's bar mitzvah gig explains presidential speaking fees. plus, bill carter on the end of "letterman." >> had his impact is enormous. you see the cross comedy. >> why lebron james' parenting skills is in the news today. >> i don't know how to answer that question. >> on what would have been his 90th birthday, the legacy of malcolm x on the black lives matter movement. "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. today for the first time since declaring her 2016 presidential run, hillary clinton discussed the vote she made in 2002 when she was a senator to authorize the iraq war. she enters the fray as the disastrous 2003 invasion of iraq