the united states. >> i do. >> i hope so. >> thank you. i hope so. >> rebecca is also honest. >> never say never. >> katrina and rebecca, thank you both. >> that is all for this evening. the rachel maddow's show and rachel's exclusive interview with hillary clinton starts right now. >> thanks for being with us tonight. usually this is the time in the show where i'm about to start talking for an uninterrupted 17 minutes that involves a lot of really archean, historical illusions. we're joined by a special guest who was hard to get. she was here in the building to do a show with jimmy fallon and we asked if she could stay and she could. >> i thought i would come during historical illusion time. >> we've heard enough about 195, maddow. >> let's go further back. >> very good.

>> the situation with these sailors taken by iran. >> right, right. >> more open lines with diplomatic communication with iran, which is a good thing. what's your reaction to iran videotaping these prisoners, what appeared to be an out of context apology by one of the sailors? was that upsetting to you? should there be consequences for that? >> of course it was upsetting to me. the american sailors up the command chain made it clear it looked like there was a mistake, we were inadvertently in their territorial waters. fine. let's recognize it and move on. don't try to turn it into some political propaganda coup, because it isn't and shouldn't be.

it raises the kind of challenges we're going to have going forward with iran, because after all, i support it, i helped start the process that led to the agreement on the nuclear weapons. we have to enforce that agreement vigorously if there are any slips or misses on the parts of the iranians, there have to be consequences, but we have this whole other arena of problems we have to deal with when it comes to iran. >> nonnuclear issues. >> nonnuclear issues. in fact one of the best arguments for the nuclear agreement was let's put a lid on their nuclear program, it would give us time and breathing space to deal with a lot of the aggressiveness, the undermining of governments, continuing outrageous support of assad as he murders his people day after day. so it wasn't clear to me, but if i were guessing, you're right, good that we have an open channel. because when i was there, we had very little opportunity to communicate. it was complicated. we would often have to go through other countries to get a

message -- >> as intermediaries. >> right. so that's the good side. the not so good side, if you're going to be a mature country and shoulder responsibilities, which your leaders claim you're ready to do, act like it. >> so in terms of pressing iran for consequences on that, what would you do? >> i think on this one, i would put them on notice that, just as we've said -- and i have given a lot of remarks about this, we're going to enforce the nuclear agreement very vigilantly. we're also going to be looking -- if they want to play a game where they turn something that was accidental into an international case, they're going to have to take the consequences if we do the same. >> i want to ask you about the presidential race right now. new iowa polling out in -- today from "the des moines register" race is tightening in iowa. you always said you would expected it to tighten at this point in the race, but they had a write-up when they put out the poll explaining what's going on.

at least the way they read it, they say that senator sanders is basically doing better than you with the same groups that powered president obama's victory in iowa in 2008, namely young people, first-time caucus-goers and independents. if iowa this year against bernie sanders looks a little bit like iowa in 2008 against barack obama, don't you need to change what you're doing to try to crack the code with those kinds of voters? >> i don't think so. here's why. i have a much better organization than i did back in '08. i have an organization that is a great mixture of people who worked for president obama in '08 and 2012, people worked for me, people new to the process. i've got a lot of confidence in them, what they're doing, and we have a very significant core of committed supporters. that's what the caucus really eventually ends up counting. who will come out on february

1st. it's cold in iowa right now. we're all a bit chilled, and actually be there for whatever amount of time it takes. i feel very good. that doesn't mean i'm not going to work like crazy to reach as many people as i possibly can. that's what i'm doing and will be doing, and of course i want to reach groups of people that, you know, are still making up their minds or may think they have made up their minds but are still persuadable. between now and when the doors open on february 1st at 6:30, we're going to do everybody we can to add to the numbers of people who have committed to caucus for me. >> the character of the campaign, the tone of the campaign, the way you're trying to persuade those undecided voters seems to have changed a little bit in the last week or so. just this afternoon your campaign, in my estimation, set its hair on fire when you called the attack ad against you. the campaign said it was the first candidate to go negative in this campaign. i have seen the ad that you're

referring to. honestly, it is not much of an attack. it never says your name. it says there's two democratic visions for regulates wall street, and i'm going to quote it directly -- it's okay to take millions from big banks and tell them what to do. it's an oblique cry but it's not something new. it's not over the top that he's this personal attacker in the campaign. >> well, let's put it into the broader context. obviously senator sanders has said repeatedly he doesn't do that, he doesn't engage in negative attacks, and i take him at his word. on anything personal. we don't do that in our side of the debate. we engage on substantive differences. we have some. he's been pointing out what he believes to be differences for quite some time from his point of view. so i have been pointing out what differences are, because i think the voters expect us to have a spirited debate and let them

know where we stand on health care, guns, the economy and the rest of the really important question that is voters are asking about this election. what i think people reacted to is that it was a very broad assertion that caught up all democrats. basically it's also a very direct criticism of president obama who, as you may recall, took a lot of money from the financial industry when he ran in 2008. that didn't stop him for fighting for the hardest regulations on wall street since the great depression, signing dodd/frank, getting everything he could get out of the congress at that time. so there is a difference. i think that, you know, the president and many democrats who support dodd/frank, we are fighting to prevent it from being turned back and eviscerated by the republicans,

are saying, wait a minute, this is hard work. and what the president got done and what the democrats who stood with him got done is a pretty important accomplishment if we're going to rein in the excesses on wall street. so it's a funny kind of charge. it's sort of a pox on all your houses for all the democrats, and i think that's what raised some eyebrows. >> the way you have rebutted that -- particularly your campaign has rebutted that -- is about senator sanders and the way he's campaigning. you're saying he's the first candidate to go negative, calling that an attack ad. recently your campaign has said, quote, he can't level with the american people. he's not done what he has promised, shifting answers. senator sanders, obviously, is your opponent. nobody expects you to walk hand in hand and come to consensus of who should be the nominee,

but he also doesn't have an enemy in the world in the democratic party or in his home state. people say in vermont, i'm considering voting for donald trump or bernie sanders. it's because his appeal is so strong that he's even appealing to the trump voters up there. he's a very well-respected figure. your campaign is essentially fighting with him now in a way that casts dispersions on his character, calling him dishonest. >> no, no. >> he can't level with the american people? >> let's parse this out. first of all i'm very proud to have the support of the present governor of vermont, two former governors of vermont, including howard dean. i'm very honored to have the support of the other senator, patrick leahy. so people who are from that same state have concluded that they want to see me become the democratic nominee and in fact are working hard to make that happen. i have no -- i have nothing but good things to say about senator sanders personally, and i

admire his incredible advocacy for the positions he holds. but the specific question that was raised here has to do with health care and taxes, because i've been laying out my plans, rachel. i've been telling you where i'm going to get the money, how much it will cost, what i will do, and for months his campaign has been saying before the iowa caucus, we will tell you what we are proposing in taxes and the bulk of what he is advocating for is a single-payer health care system which would probably cost about $15 trillion. so the voters have been led to believe that before they go make their decision, they'll be able to compare what i want to do to get to universal care, which is to defend, support and enhance the affordable care act, and what senator sanders has said he wants to do, which is to basically start all over again, start a contentious debate, try to get to a single-payer system,

but he's not telling us what it will look like and cost. >> do you disagree with that goal? do you think it would be too hard to do? >> i agree with universal health care. >> no matter how you get there? >> no matter how you get there, but to me the affordable care act is one of the signature accomplishments not of this president, but of the democratic party. we've been trying to get this done since harry truman. i worked hard on that in '93 and '94. i was thrilled when the president signed the affordable care act. i expect the republicans to do what they're trying to do, repeal it, they did it last week. thankfully, the president could veto it, but i'm surprised to be having this debate and it's really a very general debate when it comes to senator sanders about, no, we need to have a single-payer system. what does that mean? the only clue that i can find, because he hasn't laid out a

plan, is to go back and look at the bills that he has introduced nine different times. and it's a bit concerning to me, because it would basically end all the kinds of health care we know. medicare, medicaid, chip program, children's health insurance, tri-care for the national guard military, affordable care act, exchange policies, employer-based policies. it would take all that and hand it over to the states. >> he calls it medicare for all. he basically would say we replace the system -- >> but medicare for all is not the same if you're turning it over to the states. now, if he has changed his mind after introducing the bill nine times, he owes it to the public to tell them. if he has changed his mind about having the federal government pay 86% of the cost and having states have to come up with the remaining 14% when in fact we know republican governors won't even pay for medicaid, which they are going to get initially for nothing, that's what we

mean. we've been rolling out our plans and policies on the assumption that when we get toward the end -- when people are really paying attention, they're going to say, okay, i've got to compare this and contrast it. what's their position on guns? what's their position on health care? it's a little bit concerning that -- you know, the devil's in the details when it comes to health care. i am both passion adand somewhat informed about how this is. if you're going to say free health care, medicare for all, you owe it to voters to say this is what it will cost. and you will have to contribute x from your payroll tax, x from the income tax sbch. and if we're still going to hand it over to the states, the state also have to come up with money from somewhere and you're going to have to figure out how you work with the governor of that state. that's not medicare for all. medicare for all is a very different model. so i'm just saying that we're only engaging in substantive differences. i think that's what you're supposed to do when you're in a contest as important as this

one. what's your policy, what's my policy? how do you defend it? how do you explain it? and then we let the voters make up their minds. let me ask you about a different kind of health issue. you've put out statements on the lead poisoning crisis in flint, michigan, which we covered a lot. >> yes. >> i know you sent some staff members to meet with the mayor of flint. if you were president now, would you do something in terms of the response that isn't already being done? >> well, i'm very pleased that fema is trying to do what it can there. in speaking with the congressional delegation, they're trying to figure out where the funding is for the children to get tested. adults, too, but let's talk about the children. i tried to get rid of lead in

housing in upstate new york. we know it has an affect on behavior and educational attainment. we need to test kids, provide quickly whatever health care can get whatever, antidote is possible, and we need a fund for education. if these kids have been too exposed, the damage may be irreversible. we'll have to do more to help them learn. >> and you think there's a federal role. >> i think there is a federal role. i would make it a federal role. right now, as best i can understand, the republican governor, governor snyder, is refusing to ask for the triggering of the federal help that he needs in order to take care of the people who are his constituents. i am just outraged by this. i find it, you know -- lead is one of the most pernicious,

horrible toxins that kids are exposed to, and that has such serious long-lasting effects on their behavior and their learns. i would be doing everything i could, and i would be expecting everybody in a position of authority to do the same. let's find out how much it would cost to fix the infrastructure problem. i think finally the governor called on the the national guard, deliver water, do what you can to at least from this point forward to avoid further harm, but we need to do a full-fledged healthy study to determine of the 99,000 people who live in flint, who has been exposed, how much? we need to make sure that no mother is mixing any food with water for babies, and so the information -- literally people

need to be going door to door. a lot of folks who are busy, maybe not even paying attention now, the churches, civic organization, not just the political authorities need to be fully engaged. i would pull out every stop. i think i would look for any provides in the law that would permit me to override the lack of request from the governor if he refusing to still ask for what i think his people deserve to have. >> secretary clinton, i have one last question for you. i realize we are out of time. permission for one more question? >> absolutely. we'll be right back with former secretary of state hillary clinton, really.

joining us again is secretary hillary clinton. thank for you staying. >> i'm so happy to. >> my last question is weird. >> let's have it. >> but it's about democratic women.

i look at senator claire mccaskill, governors like gina romundo in rhode island, the governor of new hampshire. that kind of bench for democratic women in any other year, they would definitely be short-listed for vice president, but the common wisdom says this year there's no way any of them get picked, not if you're the nominee. is that common wisdom correct, if you're the nominee real politically speaking, it is out of question for you to choose a running mate? >> absolutely not. absolutely not. >> really? >> absolutely not. look, i am going to do everything i can to be the nominee, so i have the great opportunity to make that decision. we're living in a very unusual political atmosphere, and we

need people who are tough enough, tenacious enough with a track record to take on the forces that are readying against continuing progress, to protect president obama's legacy, and the progress and accomplishments that he has labored to achieve here at home and around the world. so i'm looking for a team, and the most important member of that team would be whoever i ask to be my running mate. i'm not ruling anybody out. >> you don't have to choose from grizzly adams mountainman in order to comfort the people who would be freaked out at the prospect of a woman president? >> i'm going to look at a lot of people. >> grizzly mountain man is not out? >> i don't know that leonardo dicaprio is available. >> ask the bear. >> exactly. i think it's important to look at the talents, the energy, the commitment the stamina. you're knocked down a lot in this kind of profession, and the people who dust themselves off

and get right back up are the people that i feel the closest to. so, men, women -- i'm going to be looking at anybody who can fit that role for me. >> former secretary of state, democratic presidential candidate, hillary clinton, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> always good to see you. >> great to see you. thanks. lots more ahead tonight and we are literally on the phone trying to book the bear for later in the show, or at least leonardo dicaprio. if we can't get through to the bear. stay with us. diabetes numbers aren't moving in the right direction, it can be a burden. but what if you could wake up to lower blood sugar? imagine loving your numbers. discover once-daily invokana®. with over 6 million prescriptions and counting, it's the #1 prescribed sglt2 inhibitor that works to lower a1c. invokana® is used along with diet and exercise to significantly lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes. it's a once-daily pill that works around the clock. here's how:

invokana® reduces the amount of sugar allowed back in to the body through the kidneys and sends some sugar out through the process of urination. and while it's not for weight loss, it may help you lose weight. invokana® can cause important side effects, including dehydration, which may cause you to feel dizzy, faint, lightheaded, or weak, especially when you stand up. other side effects may include kidney problems, genital yeast infections, urinary tract infections, changes in urination, high potassium in the blood, increases in cholesterol, or risk of bone fracture. do not take invokana® if you have severe kidney problems or are on dialysis. stop taking and call your doctor right away if you experience symptoms such as rash, swelling, or difficulty breathing or swallowing. tell your doctor about any medical conditions, medications you are taking, and if you have kidney or liver problems. using invokana® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase risk of low blood sugar.

imagine life with a lower a1c. are you loving your numbers? there's only one invokana®. ask your doctor about it by name.

there are two democratic visions for regulating wall street. one says it's okay to take millions from big banks and then tell them what to do. my plan, break up the big banks, close the tax loopholes and make them pay their fair share. then we can expand health care to all and provide universal college education. will they like me? no. will they begin to play by the rules of our president? you better believe it. i'm bernie sanders and i approve this message. >> that is the new campaign add that was just release d by the bernie sanders campaign. it will soon by running in iowa and new hampshire. sanders' campaign is -- in the homestretch, but this add in particular appears to have set off a minor firestorm. shortly after this particular ad

was released, the clinton campaign set out a press release, as an attack ad against her claiming with the ad, the first to go negative, they're saying he's broken his pledge to not run negative ads. given the actual content of the ad which you just saw, i feel like that reaction is a little over the top from the clinton campaign. i told secretary clinton that tonight. she disagreed with that characterization. that's an oblique criticism. it's not like something new, it's not over the top that he's the personal attacker in the campaign. >> let's put it in context. obviously senator sanders has said repeatedly he doesn't do that, doesn't engage in negative attacks. i take him at his word, anything personal. we don't do that in our side of is the debate, you know. we engage on substantive differences. and we have some.

he has been pointing out what he believes to be differences for quite some time now, from his point of view. so i have been pointing out what i think our differences are. because i think the voters expect us to have somewhat of a spirited debate. what i think people reacted to was that it was a very broad certification that caught up all democrats. i mean, basically it's also a very direct criticism of president obama who, as you might recall, took a lot of money from the financial industry when he ran in 2008. that didn't stop him from fighting for the hardest regulations on wall street since the great depression. what the president got done and what the democrats who stood with him got done is a pretty important accomplishment if we're going to rein in the excesses on wall street. so it's a funny kind of charge. it's sort of a pox on all your houses for all the democrats, and i think that that's what raised some eyebrows. >> bernie sanders, casting a pox

on all democrats' houses. that's criticism from secretary clinton you saw here tonight. it might actually be criticism that senator sanders wouldn't disagree with. he might wear that as a badge of pride. joining us is the great chris hays. the smartest guy i know of to explain politics particularly on the left. hello. >> hello. how are you? >> i'm trying to figure out whether that was new territory. >> so that was -- i agree with you that the kind of hair on fire response from the clinton campaign about this ad was a bit much, particularly the last few days they've been saying he'll take away injure health care. >> they want to justify how negative they're going on him right now. >> that's right. here's what was smart about that politically and i think substantively correct, when it's an attack on barack obama. it is. fundamentally it is true that the sanders world view is a world view that the current democratic party the last eight

years, arguably the most successful democratic president since fdr, has been part of the same corrupt system. it has been operating within the general corruption of the system that is bought and paid for by this. and he wants to somehow break that up. >> so he would say, yes, dodd/frank was fine. and i support it. but we could have done much more, and i would do much more, because i'm not captured by the same special interests in the same way that a good guy like barack obama is? >> the different line he has to walk is to say that like fundamentally the system needs to be shaken up more than it has been without appearing to criticize bottom barack obama who is extremely beloved by democratic voters. so hillary clinton's -- the most politically -- the political advantage she has over bernie sanders is the degree to which she can hug barack obama close to her, because she served in his administration, and i think fundamentally is more embedded in the system that barack obama

has been operating in than bernie sanders who views himself, though embed in it, critical of it. >> there's some base structural things with that. he doesn't have in super-pacs. >> he is not taking money from big banks. that was an interesting point. to say, look, he took tons of money from the financial industry and we still got dodd/frank. >> and still did good work. >> the argument on the other side and dodd/frank might have been tougher if he hadn't. >> what do you think will happen in the democratic primary now that clearly the floodgates are open? it was interesting. the sharp tone from the clinton campaign and from secretary clinton herself towards bernie sanders is not very old. it's only been a few days. >> literally a week at most. >> a week on the campaign trail. so because it just started literally just today this coverage of how maybe it's not a smart move, maybe it's backfiring, driving bernie sanders ease fund-raising. i wanted to give her a chance to

say, we're not going to do that or no, that's not what i intended. she just went way further down that road. >> right. they're going to attack. so far they're mostly in the area of substance. the health care attack which she explained -- >> in great detail. >> bernie sanders is going to take your health care. he's going to strike all these programs. it's a thing that part of it that strikes me is implausible. he's going to scrap all these programs, and it is true. go read the bill. yes it does say replace these things. it also says in the clause that health care is an entitlement, so literally in writing it grands to people that the health care cannot be taken away. >> if you try to do something so radical, you put the good things at risk. >> exactly. that's this question about really a fundamental question about the level of appetite that they have for sort of like new political fights versus consolidation of the gains -- >> yes, that's exactly right. that's it. >> risk/aversion. do you want to relitigate health

care? might that backfire, and you end up losing the aca, is kind of a political argument and it gets to voters' temperament. or do you want to -- >> yes. zblie thi zblie. >> i think the sanders camp the thing out of it is -- >> and they have declared their explanation. >> everyone understand -- a sanders medication will not be a med conveyor for all act, right? what are the incremental things you can do that moves the system closer to single-payer that wouldn't be another huge legislative battle. >> and that is a substantive fight. >> totally. >> i think it makes -- >> but it's not bernie sanders is going to take away your -- >> bernie sanders is putting existing good things in our health care system at risk because he wants to do such a radical thing? because that's what the clinton -- i think it makes people turn negative.

i think the sanders camp is less comfortable with that than the clinton camp is. so whatever the somebody stan active fight is here, i hope it doesn't get lost in people feeling so ogie about the tone. this interview tonight confirmed that for me. >> it's politics, they're trying to be the president of the united states. >> yeah. this is hard. >> it's amazing that it's in some ways it hasn't gotten here sooner. that's because it is really a tight race right now. >> chris hays, host of "all in with chris hayes" here. i told you, smartest guy in the country to talk to about politics on the left. it's true. >> thank you. >> see you soon. and while all the attention understandably is focused on the increasingly hot contest between clinton and sanders, spare a thought for martin o'malley, who has been suffering headlines like these, speculating he may not qualify for the next democratic debate.

the cruddy thing about those headlines, at the time those ran, he was actually mathematically on track to make the next democratic debate sbchlt now he officially has. so all of that insult for none of the injury, unless those wrong headlines themselves injure hi campaign, but martin o'malley will in fact be there. we also know more about how that next democratic debate will go. it's this sunday night, hosted by carson stone, south carolina. the moderator will be lester hotel from nbc news and andrea mitchell. now you know what you'll be doing sunday night. the debate kicks off 9:00 pm on nbc and, yes, martin o'malley will be there. leave him alone.

right now as best i can understand, the governor, the republican governor, governor snyder, is refusing to ask for the triggering of the federal help that he needs in order to take care of the people who are his constituents. and i am just outraged by this.

i would pull out every stop. i think i would look for any provision in the law that would permit me to override the lack of request from the governor if he refuses to still ask for what i think his people deserve to have. >> former secretary of state hillary clinton here just tonight talking about the lead poisoning disaster in flint, michigan that was literally caused by the state government there. she called it infuriating, she said she were outraged. if she were president now she would look for ways to get federal help into flint even if they had to get around the governor to do it. so that was tonight right here. today, the expressions of outrage were out loud and they started on the capitol steps in lansing. [ chanting ] >> you cannot take your signs inside the building.

[ chanting -- hey hey ho ho snyder's got to go ] then they made their way inside. they streamed in chanting, again without their signs, because they weren't allowed to bring their signs in. then they made their way up two flights of stairs. they chanted the same chant the entire way. [ chanting -- hey hey ho ho snyder's got to go. >> for context here, the people were making their way through the capitol to governor snyder's office. yes, it's largely a ceremonial office, but still.

[ chanting -- hey hey ho ho snyder's got to go ] >> there were so many people at this protest today. they filled the rotunda inside the state capitol all the way around, and some people made their way up yet another flight of stairs to where the michigan house was in session. all this happened today. flint's residents, michigan's residents streaming through the capitol, making a deliberately loud civil nuisance of themselves, calling on their governor to resign over the state government poisoning the water in flint. that's what the residents of flint traveled by bus to their state capitol to do today. another announcement that was neither by or about governor snyder. twice we've had a truly heroic -- the local pediatrician

who basically realized what was going on and took it upon herself with no funding, no directive, that she should start testing the kids in flint to see if they had lead in their blood. it turns out they did, in huge proportions. dr. mona hanna-attisha blew the whistle. she was right. her data was right, even now the governor has had to acknowledge she was right and her data was right. and now he's having to acknowledge that she was right and having her stand up with him like they're working together. and she is still such a bad ass -- forgive me -- she's still blowing the whistle on what the administration is doing right now. that's why she was here last night, still this week at that governor's press conference, they were still understating the problem, understating the number of people who have been lead poisoned by oh, say, tens of thousands of people. such a bad ass, doing such

uncompromising brave, good work. somebody like that you think, god, why isn't that person in charge? well, that's what happened today in flint. now dr. mona is in charge. it was announced today in flint they have now set up the health initiative that's going to be in charge of testing kids' blood levels and doing long-term monitoring of all of those kids and doing long-term intervention with all of those thousands of exposed kids to treat what can be treated, to mitigate what can be mitigated, to do whatever interventions can be done to try to mitigate the brain damage caused by the lead that all of those kids were exposed to. since the scale of this problem became clear, everybody's basically been saying, my god there's going to have to be monitoring for years, all these thousands of kids and their families, they're going to need help and support for years, maybe for decades. as soon as you realize how big a problem this was and what happened, immediately realize that's what was needed. now that has finally been set

up. they have put dr. mona hana-attisha in charge of it, which is about the only thing in this whole crisis that seems right and competent, nightly. details on how to support the flint kids fund are online right now. maddowblog.com or flintkids.com.

here's an update. when i asked hillary clinton tonight about the lead poisoning in flint, michigan, i was surprised by the intensity of her interest in the story, how much she knew about it, but also the force of her critique of governor snyder. she called him out for refusing, as she put it, him refusing for asking for federal help. she said she was outraged business his failure to fully

engage the federal government. given what said and the sort of ferocity, we turned around right quick and asked governor snyder for comment tonight. we gave them a transcript of her remarks and we asked for a response. we did get back a smidgen of news. governor snyder this week spoke to the white house and homeland security secretary jeh johnson about what kind of assistance the federal government can provide. and there's staff in flint assisting, the governor already has asked for a pledge from fema to coordinate an interagency recovery plan that would coordinate other efforts to provide resources in flint. and then he said this. there are tremendous efforts to go door to door to make sure people get bottled water, water tests in homes and we are working on short and long-term plans to address health issues as we move forward.

so governor snyder says he's talked to the white house, and specifically the homeland security secretary about this crisis in flint, that is new news, potential important news for flint. still not the same as calling of fema to do disaster response. we asked the governor if he has any plans to do that.

>> debunktion junction, what's my function? we start with president obama who held a town hall event this

morning as part of his generally quite upbeat, quite happy post state of the union tour. >> when i ran for office in 2007-2008, i did not say yes, i can. i said -- >> yes, we can! >> yes, we can, people. god bless you. love you. thank you, new orleans. god bless america. >> true or false, president obama was in new orleans today? no, president obama was not in thank you, new orleans. he was 80 miles away in poor put upon baton rouge, louisiana. >> thank you, new orleans. >> and also baton rouge. next week he's expected to hold a similar event in the international auto show in detroit. thank you kalamazoo. that was really lame. i was so looking forward to

doing that. next up, a story from jane mayer who has written about the conservative billionaire activists koch brothers. she's a great reporter. one of the best of our age. and she has a new book out called "dark money." in this new book she tells a story about the koch brothers' dad named fred. before i go any further i should point out the koch brothers are well-known to forceful responses to stories they feel slighted by. trust me. okay, back to papa koch. jane mayer says he helped to build one of the largest oil refineries in nazi germany. a refinery that was personally approved by adolf hitler. as you might expect, this story has not pleased the koch brothers. the story that their dad has helped hitler, but is it true or false that fred koch, the koch brothers' dad, from whom they inherited their fortune and

his business -- part of his business is that he helped build an oil refinery for the nazis. is that true or is that false? true. and the reason we know unequivocally that this is true because koch industries was very quick to respond to this story. and despite their anger about this story, their angry response to it had the side benefit of confirming the reporting. they put their response in a letter to koch industry employees this week. koch officials wrote between 1928 and 1934, winkler-koch engineering handled more than 500 projects. of these, 39 involved signed contracts to build cracking units. one of those cracking units was included in the refinery in the port area of hamburg, germany. simply put, it was just one element in the composition of a single refinery. so the koch brothers dad built only part that have refinery for the nazis. koch officials also went to

great lengths to point out all the other projects that dad's company worked on that were not for the nazis. neat. except for that one that was. jane mayer wrote her own response to the koch's response essentially thanking them for, quote, confirming that koch was involved in the creation of an oil refinery, which adolf hitler personal personally greenlighted. just that one nazi refinery which, admittedly, is almost the same as working on no nazi refineries. almost the same. almost.

when your type 2 diabetes numbers aren't moving in the right direction, it can be a burden. but what if you could wake up to lower blood sugar? imagine loving your numbers. discover once-daily invokana®. with over 6 million prescriptions and counting, it's the #1 prescribed sglt2 inhibitor that works to lower a1c. invokana® is used along with diet and exercise to significantly lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes. it's a once-daily pill that works around the clock. here's how: invokana® reduces the amount of sugar allowed back in to the body through the kidneys and sends some sugar out through the process of urination. and while it's not for weight loss, it may help you lose weight. invokana® can cause important side effects, including dehydration, which may cause you to feel dizzy,

faint, lightheaded, or weak, especially when you stand up. other side effects may include kidney problems, genital yeast infections, urinary tract infections, changes in urination, high potassium in the blood, increases in cholesterol, or risk of bone fracture. do not take invokana® if you have severe kidney problems or are on dialysis. stop taking and call your doctor right away if you experience symptoms such as rash, swelling, or difficulty breathing or swallowing. tell your doctor about any medical conditions, medications you are taking, and if you have kidney or liver problems. using invokana® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase risk of low blood sugar. imagine life with a lower a1c. are you loving your numbers? there's only one invokana®. ask your doctor about it by name.

so here's an intriguing update. this past friday, we reported that the justices of the u.s. supreme court were scheduled to discuss bob mcdonald. the federal corruption case of virginia republican governor bob mcdonald. you'll recall he was convicted of multiple felony corruption charges and was sentenced to two years in federal prison. he has already lost his appeal at an appeals court. one level below the supreme court. so, the supremes, considering his case this past friday, that's basically his last chance. it's a suspenseful thing. maybe the supremes will come to his rescue and hear his case. if they don't, though, governor mcdonald has to go to prison. the supremes had this case on their docket to consider it on friday. we had thought that we would we had thought that we would get the court's order on the bob mcdonald case one way or the other. we actually thought we would get it on monday this week.

but it didn't happen. the justices talked about the case this past friday but monday rolled around, all week has rolled around now and they said neither yay nor nay about the case. what does that mean? intriguing, right? at base level, at the very least, bob mcdonald didn't get told no. his case is still alive. he didn't have to go to prison this week. pete williams of nbc news also points out that back in august, the justices stepped in, when they didn't have to, and decided governor bob mcdonald would not have to report to prison while he had a shot. he told us if they thought his appeal was baseless, it's unlikely they would have done that. so maybe these are all good signs for governor bob mcdonald. in any event, here's the very, very intriguing thing that's happened since. after the justices didn't say what they would do with his case on monday, or any other day this week so far, the justices then said they would put it back on the docket to discuss it again starting tomorrow. so i don't know if hope springs eternal for the convicted

governor but hope definitely does have a little more spring in its step than it used to. this is a case we followed since the beginning. tomorrow may very well be the biggest day in this case yet. watch this space. watch this space. "first look" is up next. >> it's friday, january 15th. right now on "first look," the republican candidates squared off, taking shots and landing punches squarely on one another but almost universally going after president obama and the person they fear most. >> you cannot give hillary clinton a third term of barack obama's leadership. >> hillary clinton would be a national security disaster. >> hilly clinton is disqualified from being commander in chief of the united states. a federal judge orders the release of video showing a chicago police officer shooting and killing an unfarmed teen. the husband and manager of celine dion has died after a long battle with throat cancer, and this on the heels of the passing of the great alan