for democrats or whoever no matter what the party bel is i guess theans democrats that is money could be going to something that at least resembles third party actity as opped to purely being directed towds the republicans? >> there's always th possibility. lo, she has $450,000 in the bank. she could give that money democrats. that's always a poibility. that said,heajority of this money is going in my mind republans. might she give to a mocrat here or there? simply to bot her credibility out inpendent credibility? i guess but i thit's unlikely >> in all of this did we mis the headline here? did levi johnston with his eness chtering on the moing shows offer her something newhen he was talkinabout her stress levels? hefriends have been talking about how streed the governor is. they claim she's uereight, her hair is thinning. was it actually that that s a very simple answernd on a human level very understandae as to why she would ve regned from a high pressure job as a governor of any sta would have to necessily be? >> well, keith, asomeone who

mped to a very quick conclusion, me, saying this is all about 2012 as soon as i heard it which was by e way in a xican staurant in texas, really super cvenient for me, but lo. there's a lot, i thinkthat goes into these rts of decisions. i do think the stress on hernd her family is a veryegitimate thing. i think she wathinking about 2012. shwas thking about her own financial well being a her fa's financial well being. she was al thinking about the fact that hefamily life was not --as number one playing itself out in public which is a ttle bit her fault frankly but also not playing outhe wayhe wanted it to. i think it's a litate part of the way she made this decision to y, you know what? nothing good is coming o of this. i am walking away. now, wt impa that has on her political ture i think is detae as we heard david gregory and john main. it's up for debate. i do think sess and the way in which her family was bei tread in the press was a part of her dision. >> we'll have see what the higher calling is. that still the mystery. as always, great thanks for th insight and the time. >> tnk you, keith. that is "countdownfor this the 2,265tday since the previous president declared mission accomplished in iraq good night and good luck.

now to discuss the intel program dic cheney ordered kt from congress, here is rache maddow. good ening, rachel. >> thank you very much fort. 96 years ago theery wise justicbranis referred to sunlight as the be disinfectant. michael isakoff will be re this hour to discuss a big bst of sun light on ck cheney and promise of even more on th bush administratn's torture policy. congressman zach wamp also says we got somhing wrong on this show about senator ensign, c reet and the religious group known as the family, so one of us will get correcd night. judge sonia sotomar has been dged prejudicedy a seronoer to y republican senator today. and it might not all be out about sarah palin but it's

almost all out. there is mh to get to over the course of this hour. but weegin tonight with what may be the biggest post bush presidency scandal tt we have seen to te. allegations that some members of congress say should leado crinal investigation of the former vice presidenrichard bruce cheney. this is a story, an allegation that srted to unfold last we and then oblique, almo formss story about problems th what congress knew about the cia. the impact of the storwasn't recognizab athe start until the details started to fall into place one by o. on wednesdayight we got first news of a short, mysteous tter written by democraton the house intelligen committee alleging that the cia dictor leon panetta h told them that the cia had beenyi to congress for years. a very provocative letter to be sure. t it was very short. there were no details. stly the release of that letter just engendered a lotf speculation about why this was happening, what it mht be

referring to, and the timing. why ce out when it did. what political motations might have been behi it? that was on wednesday. on thursy we learned that cia director leon netta was investigating atever it was that he told congress abouthat sparkethat little letter fro thdemocrats. we learnedurer that this program, whatever it had been, had never been described to the public before. d we lrned that mr. panetta, himself, didn't even knoabout that progr for the first four and half months of his tenure leading the cia. immediately afr found out about the prram, literally that day, mr. panetta ded the program and th the very next day he wento congress and briethem about it. so he at least had some sense urgency about it. the next detail to fall into ple came on friday. itas the bombshell from congresswoman jan schakowsky that the cia didn't just neglect to iorm congress about this program. ey didn't just forget. it wasn't ju an oversight. she said the cia had bee

ordered to not tell congress about it. they had been overtly dered to hide the program fm congress. on friday night jan schakowsky was a gut on this program and i askeher, who ordered the cia to keep the prm quiet? check t her response. >> thereas a decision that was made not to tell the congress, and so that's onof the things that we have to look io very carefully, why that deon was made, who made the decision t to inform the congress. is was no mistake. they didot want us to know about this. >> do you knowho made the decision? >> we're going to -- i can't talk abohe names that were involved. but i think our investigation needs to determine ectly who -- what convertions were had and o signed off on those decisions. >> i can'talk about the names

thatere involved. thatas on friday night on this show. on saturday night, a of a sudden, yeah, we can talk abt the namenow. the talk of th"new york times" website saturday night. bingo. cheney is linked tconcealment of ciaroject. the cel intelligence agency withheld informaon about a secret counterterrorism progra from congress for eight years on direct orders fr former vice presendick cheney. thats a major bombshell. that is potentiay a significant crime. the 1947 natiol security act states in very unambiguo terms, the predent shall ensure that the congressnal inteigence committees are kept fully and curry informed of the intelligence activitieof the united states including any significant anticipated intelligen activity. congre should be fully informed. fully ancurrently informed. that's in the law. as in thou shalt not overtly order that congress beept in the dark. sithis saturday night cheney bombshell, tre have been some

vague disclosures about at th program actually is or might be. the "wall street jrnal" today chartezing it as an assaination program, which if true would be illegal. the ford administration banned that 30 years ago. regardless of what t program is exact, it's not the exact coours of the program expected to determine mheney's fate. it's simplthe extent to which his deliberate ord to deceive congress can bproven. so far the recentlite verbose . cheney is not talking. members of congress,owever, are. >> to ve a massive program th is concealed from the leaders in congress is not onl inappropriate, it could be illegal. >> i think this is a probl, obviy. iss a big problem, because the law is verclear. we were kept in the dark. that's something thashould neve er happen again. >> senators durbinnd feinstein of course arboth democrats. senator feinstein the chr of the inlligence committee.

acss the aisle from them the reaction from republicans been rather more subdued. >> this of course comes onhe heels of the stament unproven by the way of speaker pelo that t cia had lied to her about enhanced introgation techniques, and this looks tme suspicioly like an attempt to provide political cover her and others look, thpresident and the vice president arthe two people who have rponsibilities ultimately foe national security of the country. it is not out of the ordinar for the vice president to be volved in an issue like this. >> buto order it to be kept secret? >> what if is a top-secret program? of course he a the president would bothe responsible for that. let's don't jump to conclusions is what i'm saying >> let's don't jump to conclusions. let's don't, of course. but let's also make re appropriate colusions are drawn he. joining ow is senator sheldon whitehouse from rhode island. it was a big day on the

judicily committee today, which we'll talk abo in a moment. thanks very much for joining u tonight. really appreciate it. >> gd be with you. >> senator durbin ys this could be illegal. setor kent conrad says it's a serious breach senator abnaugh says it's very senator feinstein sayst'a big problebecause the law is verylear. your colleagues are speaking o loudly and firmly. are you also concerned ts is a major problem? >> i think given the scope of some of the other prlems that we're looking at, with the central intelligence agency in particular the torre investation, i don't know if call this a very major o, t it certainly merits inquiry to understand whyt is tt president cheney decided to order this to be kept fr us if at is true.

that the pss report. d to assure that that's not continuing to happen the cia, we think,nd i think the amican people expect, should be subject to the lawof the united states, whinclude the requemt you read that they disclose to certain members of congress their covert prrams. >> the 1947 nationalecurity act, i'm no expert on these thingsi know you were a u.s. senator and are much me u.s. qualified than i am toudge ese things but it does seem that the law in this case is clear and dire. and ifhat director panetta told the committee is true a there s an overt order for mr. cheney to ke ts from congress, does he have any legal wiggle room? that matter of negotiation hat point or a rather clea cut matter of the law? >> i wong it's a rather clea cut matter of the law. the question thewould be what is the remedy? every viation of law is not a criminal offense.

and you have to, if you wisho proceed as a cnal matter find a charge that applied to that situation. and it could be thathere is none. >> theree been some calls r the senate intelligenc commtee to investigate this matter. you're a member of that committee. can you tell us if the are plans at this pointo investigate? would you support that? >> i thinkn the exercise of our ersight responsibilities it is very important fors to make sure thathis is not a continng problem with the cia. it is of se concern that this came up at the last minute. apparently directopanetta was very rapid ibringing it to our ation and trying to cure the ilgality, but it's not exactly heart warming think that the directorf the cia for many months was unawa othe ogram himself. what happened to the meeting

when he nt inthis guys and said, okayfolks, i'm the new director here. ato i need to know? what's going to get in trouble? bring me up to speed. i don't want anything going off undeme i'm not forewarned i can't believe anybodas sophisticateas he is didn't have that conversation and it's hard tbelieve that didn't co up then. >> finally, senator, inow that itas a very big day on the senate judicry committee which you serve on. how dodoouou tnk the day went fofor dgdge tomayor today? i think it went fine.e. i think that lindsdsey ghahafor instance saying she'd hahave t have a complete meltltwnwn i order to not b bcoconfmed is a sign of the posisionon t republicanans arininin terms of tryiyi t to op her. i i thk she is in a very, veryr good p positn n be confirmed and atat great deal of what's s going on righthtowow i positioning for the e ne n nomee and fighghti f forhe vision of

what a united states s supmeme coururjujudgshould think like and look likike wi t t republicicanfifighng very hard to try to normalize the e righ wing infililtratn n to the judiciciy y th've accomplished over the pasast upuplef years. >> when you say look l lik d do you mean to imply y thathehehave raised the issssue ohehegender anand ce against her? w wel they've tried to sortrt of set a as atat'sormal and as the sort of babasibebencark the almost exclusivevelyhihiteale, 6 out of 8 rightht nowtatas of the court,t,ndnd ty have tried to suggest that when shshe ysys s brings a differerent pererectiv ththathahat'a sign of a problem on her part. anand its s little odd that her pepective should be a proboblem but the e rsrspeive of six white men should not be a prprobm.m. i ink everybody brings thahat persrspecte.e. none of them a are aroroem. and it's theheomombition of thosose pepepeives that makes a betttt c cou. >> democratic senanatoshsheln

whitehouse o of rhe e land a member of the senatete ininteigigen committee and senate jududicia c cmittee i kn i it'been a very long day fofor u, sir. thksksery much for making titime for us tonight. >> thank you. good to be with you. > d do u know what it takes get a show about poliliti t to nolead the top of the hourur th the first day of susuememe court nominatition hriris? itit teses t former vice prident staring down the ovoveral barrel of a criminana investigatioion. which we've just discucueded. and it takes the c curntnt totoey general apparently y deciding to appoinint a rtrte prosecutor a all oa a dden. huge news today. "newewswk"k"'sichael isakoff will join us next to disiscuss that. plus the story of sesenar r ensign's affaiaiwiwithis employee and the r relioiousroup all mimid d upn the scandal just ll not go away in partrt bauause now they'r'rtataki issue with my coverage of the story.y. oh, dear. stay tuned.. > > bufirst, one more thing. among the rereaconons the news out former vice presesidt t di cheneyeyododay the speculatatioonon h legal liabilitity, t p pitical brususacack om his defenders in his own party.

one respononsetatandout. specifically for itsts wrdrd timing. s daughter, liz cheneyey, appaparent u ung the occasion of thpopontial criminal investigatation h h father for breaking the nationanal seriri acto announce that she plalans to run foror oicice. here she was on a a didio ow run by the conseseatativ"washington time n nspaper. >> it's sosoththini may well do down t theoaoad re. i i hopeo o ve the opportunity at some point t h havthat make sense e for f fily and everything else e th's's gng on. >> in the e sa i intview liz cheney argues that t the corororsy over her father allegedly ordering theheiaia t deivive ngress showed just howow unustworthy democrats araronon national secururity. you knknowananyo can deny. t tak a true cheney to deny and attack in n e e sa sentence. blood will out. prprofessional tennis. so i'vee come this court tto challee his speed.

.on the internet. i'll be usinghehe 3 at&t laptopconneccacard. he won't so ianook travel plans stster check my account balancnces fastete all on the go. i'm bill kurtitis and i' faster than andy r roddick. (announcer) "swcho the nations fafastt 3g network" "and getethe at&t laptopcocot card for free".

d only from progresssse. "swcho the nations fafastt 3g network" call or clk day. more thaonce this summer here at the rachel maddow show shoup for work all ared up to have our jaws drped and our gobs smacked by the release of what wee been calling big kahuna. the 2004 cia inspeor general's report on tortur every ti we thought this report was coming we insad had to find a differenpage one story. they still haven't released it. we first expectethe report june 19th. then wgot the news it was going to be delayed a week until ne 26th.

then it was july 1st and now t release is delayedntil the end of augt supposedly. report details the investigation of the bush administration's torture progr as it was happening. itppears to have caused fu blown political panic side the bush whiteouse when it was first coleted in 2004. it'sever been publicly released. but people whoave seen it have describeit as sickening. one person who hasead it recently is attorn general eric holder. "newsweek" reporting thast moh e attorney general holed up with the report ihis office. he cleared his schedule for a full t days and read it cover to cover twice after that, quote, fr knowledgeable sources tell "newsweek" thathe atrney general is now leaningoward appointing a prosetor to investigatthe bush administration's brutal interrogation prtices. specifically, "the washiton post" reported this ekend that prosecutions could be targed at torture that wenteyond the guidance in those now repudiat rture mos. when the obama admtration

released tse memos in april the presidt said at the time that no one acting in acrdance with their instructions should be prosecute but he pntedly didn't say anything abo people whose actions went beyond those structions. >> for those who carried out some of these operatnsithin thfour corners of legal opinions or guidance that had beenrovided from the white house, i do not thk it's propriate for them to be prosecuted. >> but anyone who acd outside those four corrs of those legal inns? meet the new attorney general. not at all the same as the lt attorney general joing us now is michael isakoff, "neek" investigivcorrespondent, "neweek" investigative reporter at msnbc, contributor thanks for joining us tonight. >> hi, rachel. >> who is potentially ing to be prosecuted here? >> potentily, cia contractors and eratives who conducted the interrogations in the fiel

is important to understand at this prosecutorial review, and it's a review and investigatn, not necessarily a decion to prosecute, is and what it's not. and i think the could be some disappointment bpeople who do think that the entire bush ministration interrogation policies ahe people who crafted those pocies and crafted those memos need to be investiged. that's -- they're not going be. i did some further repting today on this and what i'm hearing fr sior officials is very clear. only those who wenbeyondr potentlly went beyond what was hose memos. now, that's not nothing. that important. it is worth noting that e same cia inspector neral who epared that report in may of 2004 also referred a a dozen

cases tohe justice department, the cia inspector general, to thjustice department a dozen cases for tential prosecution. one, a guy in north cali. but all thothers were declin. now the obama juste department, holder justice departme is going to take another lookt those to see whether those cases that he languied for years should be reinvestigated prosecuted. >> on the issuof how the, i guesthe -- how this gets defined, how people figure out whetr they might potentially be the target of prosecution here, if peoplare acting outsidthe bounds of the instruions from those torture memos, is a foregone conclusion thathey were freelancing, making it uas they went along? isn't it possible thathey we taking tse actions on orders? ey were being directed to do those things?

couldn't it go further up the chain of command? i talked to some defense lawyerday who said that is solutely inevitably going to be the defense, that of ybody whcomes within the -- comes up inhis prosecution. the defense lawys are going to say they were relying and ing at their superiors knew abou and told them to do,hat the guidelines ithose memos were ambiguous and fuzz and they had every reason to belie that the -- when they waterboarded someon one detainee 183 times or another 83 timeey were doing what they believed the superiors want them to do, and so these- i think everybody recognizes these are going to be difficult cases to bring, precisely because of the defense like that. >> what would these pe be charged with cceivably, look inat the previous dozen ses brought up by the insptor general undethe last

adminition and what we know is ithat report now? >> that is an interesting question i know from some reporng today that in at least one case th inspector general nted the indivi to be prosecuted for tortur for violation of the federal torture statute. what inevitably happened in at case and in others washat they -- the bh justice department shied away from briing any cases alonthose lines. theyooked at it for potential assault charges, in someases homicide, beuse some of these guys d die in cia custody. they didn't inany homicide cases but, you kno the answer fromhe holder people is that was the bush jti department. that'sot necessarily what this justice department is going to do whethey relook at these cases. >> last question, very briefly, michael. is this a done deal or sti being debated?

>> i think it's etty far along. as my colleagureported this weekend in "newsweek," holder leaning ins direction. he'still leaning in that -- in this direction even after the potential blow back today. but you ver know in washington i think inevitly this is going to be ntversial, so until it's a done deal, it not a ne deal. >> this the first day of what is gng to be a hot story for a very long time. michael isikoff, msnbc contributor, investigative correspondent fo"newsweek" thank you so much for joining tonight. >> tha you, rachel. oming up, the nation's finelyalibrated ono-meter explodes as senator jeff sessions tells supreme cournominee sonia sotoyor that she has a prejudice problem. and more on the cretive religious group the family that's connected to the nator johnnsign sex and money

andal and th mark sanford sex and argentina scanl. that comes up next. taking its ririul place in a long line e of amang performamance maines. this is the e w e-coe. isis imercedes-benz. don't blend inin

don't be so mayo werere our own unique one of aind flavor a miracle ipip a we will nonot tone it down carpools, nfnfnces, microwowave dinners. they blur o intthe next. we losouelves in the f ofveryday life, and drift t away from what t matter but like a beacon in the night, it finds us. e light of more an 100 lighthouses, burning through ththat fog, and beckokoning usack to what's rl and true. this light shines f u us l. thisigig is pure michigan. yourur trip bens at michigan.or

>>still ahead the confirmation hearings for judge son sotoyor. are the republicans big chance to make clear their rervatio about her nonation. we'lhave an eyewitness report shortly. all the newly reported details abt governor sarah palin'resignation boil down to

something far less graiose and far less complicated than we might previouslyave understood? that's cominup shortly. plus my frndent jones exposes a truth about cursin it can be quite thapeutic. that's all coming up. but first, we have had strange responseay to our cent reporting on the faly. a secretivreligious organition that among other things runs a house in washington called c street whe number of members of congress live. we spent timon this show both thursday and fridataing about thfamily because it's erged as a key player in both major republican sex scandals of thsummer in which family values preaching politians who ve demanded resignations of other politicians fohang affairs have theelves now admitt to afirs but are showing signs of intending to regn. those of south carolingornor mark sford and nevada senator john ensign who lives in t c stre house maintained by the family. the husband of his misess says other members of congrs who

lived at c street both kneof his affair andounseled senator ensignn how to resolve it. governor sanrd name checked c street expliciy in his press conference in which he annnced his fair saying he had reived counseling about t affair from c street while the affair w ongoing, but still secret. on friday's show i quoted an account from the knoxville news sentin in which a member of congress who lives at c street described one ofhe most worrying aspects of this shadowy, powerful orzation -- its secrecy. e congssman in question is zackamp of tennessee. has lived at c street for a dozen yearand here is what i said about him on iday. zack wamp of tenneee is a publican member of congress who says he s lived in the c street houseor 12 years. today he told the "knoxville news stinel" that members of congress who live there are sworn toecrecy. quoting, the c street resides have all agreed they w't talk

out their private living arrangements, wamp said, and h intends to honor tt pact. i hate ithat john ensign lives in the house and this happen because it opep all of these kinds of questions, wamp sai but, he said, i'm nogoing to be the guy who goes out and talks. that was thon show on frid. today congressman wamp'sffice contacted our office to complain about what i said saying, quote, th statement made by ms. maddow friday night is fal. today he told th"knoxville newstinel" that the members of congress who ve there are sworn to srecy. congressman mp never said people who live or meeat c street are srn to secrecy because at is in no way true. the onhe record quotation from mr. wamp was that c street residents have all agreed they wot talk about their private living arrangements. the news sentinel characteze the agreement as a pac called the news sentinel today to see if they got that wrong toee if mr. wamp's fice had at least also calle them tsay the quote was wrong to demand a retraction or

rrection. they said they hen't heard from him. turns out zack wamp'office is only complaings to. until we have reason to believe mr. wa was lying when he said c street residents have all agreed n to speak about c re or his home state paper was lying when they attributed the quote to him, i am goingo have to d by what i said. i have said something urue on this program i amuite literally not kiddinmore tn happy to correct it. but ngressman wamp if you say something to yr hometown paper thatous bad when repeated on national televisio don't blame the person reading your que quote makes you sound.py that i'm teted to add something here about bearing false witness but i shall rrarain -- barely.

of 110 iiduals who have served as supre court justices throughout our nion's story, 106 have been white s. >> that was nar dick durbin of illinois spking at today's confirmation hearings for sonia sotomayor, presint obama's pick for the supreme cou. it is ly assumed judge sotomayor will be confirmed. e will be sworn in as the

first ever lato to serve on the supreme court, n t meion only the court's third woman. which ans reblicans in the senate are using the sotomayor hearings not so muchs an opportunity to block the presens nominee, because they knothat ptty much they can't, but rather to demstrate the character of tmselves in opposition which iturns out looks a ttle something like this. >> many of judge sotomayor's public staments suggest that she may indeed all or even embrace desion making based on her biases and prejudices. already prejudiced against one of the parties. >> allow biases and persal preference youre latina comment. >> your wise latina mment. >> justice somayor has said shaccepts that her opinions, sympathies, and prejudes will affect hulings. >>f your irony sensing ulc is spitting bile right now l me confirm that last guy there was republican senator jeff sessions of alaba accusing sonia sotomayor of having a prejudice problem. that would be the me jeff

sessns who own nomination for a federal judgeship could not make it out of t republican-run judiciary committee in 198after teimony that he had called the naacp unamerican and cmunist inspired, had ked that he thoughthe ku klux klan was ok until he found out members of the klan smoked pot, and at he agreed with anotherawyer who sa a department of justice attorney who was white was a disgraceo his ce because he represented african-americs. and those are the ings that he admitted to saying andried to defend. the charges he dend included the allegation that he told a black attorney he ld, quote, be careful aboutow he lked to white fol and that he called a black aorney boy. now jeffessions is leading the charge against sonia sotomayor on the grounds that she has a prudice problem. and senator ssions is doing it pt of the hearing process that is basically certaito result in judge sotomar's

confirmation whicheans senator sessions spefically and his party generally are ing this opportunity to stand on the giant mediplatform that is a supreme court nonation to proclaim themselves to t nation as posed the first ever nominion of a latino to the supreme court, mostly on t basis of questions about re. joininus now is the chief legal correspondent and senior editor forlate.com. you've covered the hrings in washingt today. thanks very muchor coming on the ow. >> thanks for having me. >> so far in this mination fight are having a grand bate here about legal rategy or as is my nse are we mostly just talking about race? >> we are think having a lile group therapy with the prime person we're supposed to be talkingbout, sotomayor, so of like a potted ornamental plant in the middle of the roo and the most interting thing, rachel, is that she's got this nearly 18-yearudicial record weould be talking about. this is not someone o'hard

to -- there is data he. so what we heard a lot tod was from the republicanst least why that record doesn't tter and as you said, the record doesn't matt because what real matters is a handful of stements about race. it's an interesting straty to say we'reot goi to talk about all thattuff that we care aboutall that constitutional ipretation, and doctrine, and how we think about the la because we just want to talk abo race stead. >> in terms of who gets to set the agenda herthe democrats have such a large majori in thsenate that they've evenot a huge majority on this committee and this question now is whether or noi guess they do set the agenda. we do end talking about the wise latina commt and anything else thecan get on the agenda about race or whethethe hearings do d up being about r judicial record. that what -- where the split is in partisan terms? are democrats trying to make this about her record? >> well, i think democrats are trying to do two tngs, at least today in oning statements one is talk about her reco.

they dinitely beat the drum for her story, an extraordin person narrative. i think they havgone out of their way to talk about it. in fact, sator al franken went out his way to talk about just oinary americans and why access to justice in the courts matters. so there is all at. then i think there's ts other piece of it thaty really are trying to almost make the case for empathy. they're foowing president oba's lead in saying, look. here's what's wrong thhe roberts court. they're trying to e it aa way of saying, she brings someing to the bench that is profly lacking in sam alito, jo roberts, scalia and thomas. so you're seeing layered ov a discussion of her record this other sort of squishier notion of something is lackg at the court. you can callt empathy. yocacall it heart. you can call it beinin touch with how your decisionaffect people on e ground. the e all sorts of

iteratio of this we heard day. but i think a t of what we hetoday was savannah redding, lilly lbetter, these key cases at suggest supreme court just doesn't care about people >> well, is empathy, is it heart, is it connection to the real world? it is the closest ing we've got to an ivortower. once they'een on the court they never have a normalife again. to what extent should we expect either sotomayor hererse o othe democrats who o ardedending her nomination to make the c casthth ovtltlit is better to have some racial l dirsrsy on the court because ththcocourhas to make decisisnsns f a racially diverse nationon >> you k kno t t person i acalallyhought did a nice job b of handling this queststioofof you know, sessssnsns wt so far today as to say, empatat t towds onpapartis prejudice towards another. ththat a pretty charged statement. cacauscertainly empathy as it's being construrueded bobama and senate dememoctstssn't bias. it's'sotot pjudice. it's saying, how d do inin play out t inhehe wld? thought that senator k klochchar did d a cecenice job today

trying to sasay,ooook. everyonene othth committee has a different life storyry. we've got differerenbabackounds and exexririens. thatat dsnsn'take us biassed. itit mns we come together anan bring ththe alalthf our exexpeenenceogether and we're a better groupup f i it. i ththk k th's a point that is nonoquite being made loud d an clear. ththinthere's all sorts of fenses of empathy and partrt o the problem is empathyhytstselis such a squishy, , nsnstitional word that itit lveves self open to allll ststs oattack. t i thought that was s st t of nice way of mamaki t t point ththatmpmpat doesn't make you crazy. itoesn't mean that every single time you sesee whwhitguy you fly into a rage. empathy means yoyou mpmp derstand both sides of thehe disputute. and i just want todd thhat totomar in her veryry,ery brff openingstatement, it w was seveve mites, reallyly totook j the facts asas stripippedd dn a they couould be, b oneoioint she

made was juststhat shee h fidelity of the law,utut she also had a n ni ltlerrif a abt how when s shwrwrit an opinion she writes ohehe law,w,hen she writes outhehe otherr side of te story and then gugus out in heopinion whether they'r'r right or wrong. i think it was a a w o of telegraphingngi i he both sides. >> dollyly liwiwi, thanks very mumuchor coming on the show.w. i'i'm ryry eited for the rest of the hearings. t tnk you. coming u uonon "untdown" keitith s s re on attorney general eric holder sasangng h may y apinina special prosecutor to look into whether the bus administration brohe law by toururinprisoners. xt on this show, everything we always wanted to knonow about t sarah palin is fararpler than rsrst imined. thwell, duh, is in the details.

you have questions. whn give you the financl l adce you need? wherere willou find the stabilility d sources toeep you ahead of this radlevolving world? these are tougugh questions. thth's why we brought totoer two of the most werful names in thehe industr introducing rgantanley smith barneyey hereo rethink wealth management.t.

here t to aner... your questionsns. morgan stanley smith barne a new wealth manament firm wi o ove130 years of expernce. populaon 49 million. 14000 teenagers are typing a a text ssage at 7 70 words minute. average speed their parents: 8 8 right now, 90 high schoolers are shopping for new kicks on zappos.com. - none of themem got gam - ( buer snds ) 19,000 teenars a flipping 3 3,000 bgers - to get the new amsung exclaim. ( ( zzles ) - ( gasps ) - just one of four iming, exting and twitteringg ba-tschool phones you n get from sprint, starting at 9.. sprint. the now network. deaf, hard of aring and people with speech disabilities cess www.sprintrelay.com.. >> dadais the 50th anniversary y ofmemeca's first nucleaeamemeltwn. itit w 50 years ago in ventutu county, , lilifoia, the atomic teteational field laboratotory in the mountainsnsadad aig, rrible whoopsie, a powowerururge

at one of the reacacrsrs csing a partial l medodo and released radioactivivgagas to the air for almomostwowoeeks. a few weeks afteter e e cident thatomic energy commissisi released a statement t the w was no evidence of r radacacti leases, which was falslse. itit w a ather 20 years before e details of the meltdtdowanand the counting of the dadangs s re mamadeublic. sof you're the federal governmementhahadoes etiquette rereque e u to give the state of california for the g gdeden anniversrsy y ofmerica's first nuclear meltdown?? well, a cleaeanuwowod be nice. righght w w e is scheduled to be completed in 201017,ouough 60 yeyes after the meltdown.. nuclear power, not just t th world's most e expsisiveeans of boboining ter. soso aonstant opportunity fofo multi-i-neneraonal radioactive didister. hahappanannirsary.

> the most interesting pern in american polics whose name is notarack obama or michelle obama is of cour sarah palin. like it orot. i realize this weekend that it was not even yet a year agwhen as a panelist on the late lamented show "re for the white hous i brought up sarah palin and the troopeat investigation as almost a side bar, human interest distraction from our daily sculation on who would be the vic esidential choices of senators mccain and oba. i thought at the time th troorgate probably was a big enough ethical qstion mark over theovnor of alaska to keep h out of any serious contention as john mccain's vi presidential pick. threand a half weeks later she

was mccain's vice presidenti pick. i wawrong. big time. which of coursis an occupationalazard of the predicting t futpart of the pundit job. as goverr palin's life has turned into the most amazing show on cable ov the past 11 months tough the presidential caaign and the tumultuous months for her since then,t turns out now that it actually has been thethical question marks in her lifand basic problems in handling elected office appropriately that seem to havbrought her career as a public officiato an end. sarah palin announceshwas resiing as alaska governor on the friday bore the july 4th holiy weekend, a move that surprised everyonehought to be closto tovernor's policathinking. frankly, it surprised everyone who knowanything about politics. that'secause the thing you do wh you're eyeing a race for present is announce you won't se another term as governor. see for example tim pawlen. you n't announce you're quitting ithe le of your first te when your only other

exrience is mayor of a small town. that that politics 101 truism. the resignation itself and t many interviews nce then are why the resignatioonly heightened the alrdy stream fascination with h. there is major newalin scandal about bak she is trying to get t ahead of. is this so politically advanced shrewd moodor the presidency too clever r politics 101 students to grasp? what role do she want in potics in the future? will she get to play tharole? in t landmark of palintology today in "the new york times shsigned because her governorship was a disaster. it was a jump off the political cliff to avo being pushed off that cliff. among the chief causes oher downfall?

she was unable tstopself from picking fights with her critics and from responding when critics picked fights with h. when david lettermanade iladvised joke about the govern's daughter, she tried to stoke an ongoing ud of him, acsing him of advancing the exploition of girls by older men. someone in alaska said she full fully fund anti-sexism abuse in alaska. she sa to issue a statement denouncing alaskan bloggers her accused her every hical missteps. shhad lawyers threaten illal action against people who oke out agnst on daytime cable television. the official press offe put out multiple pre statements denouncinger daughter's 1919-yr-old ex-boyfriend whihi

mama h him hotter topic than ever for interervi o oortunities to talk trash h abt t hialmost momoerer-ilaw. that lack of self-f-cororol d of boundariesesetetwe the personal and the political and d thpepey ishe flaw that had drawnwnerer inin e earer ethnics scandals li troopergate. you remember troopererga?? where the statate gigislure found d e e abed her office by fifiri t theovernment safety commissiononerhohoouldn't fire hebrother-in-law that. was before she got p picd d run for vivicereresint. it b beean incredible year of f watching sararahalalin we s sululd ow better than to suggest we knonow atathe should do next.t. what is able t to r repted about t e e castrophic unraravengngf her governorship tells us what this isn't't ththe e ist ant exotic political heme for higher office her there isn't a dramaticic se e waiting to drop p inigigew

criminal i invtitition. thisis i't'tven about how sarah papan's life changed sincece s has been subject to o thnanatial spotlight. rarapalin's career as an elected offifici i iover because of a proven inabililittoto gern. a thin skin n abt t cricism, distorteted ioioties that result from having thatat tn n sk and ability to judge the difference betweenen wt t gs her as a person n d d wh's an appropririe e usof an elected official's time anand e e blic's resources.s. governor palin w wilbebe arivate citizen agagaibyby t end of next week. whwhknows what untold millllio a wait her if a boo o coraractnd anan ivitable broadcasting d dl and show job. she may cocoininueo be the most entetertnini republican on the planet b ba a mi, but she will nonobebe aelected official agn. after the didisaererf her vernorship in alaska, , wowoul guess she willll n e en risk ththatatate ever running again. ththataid, if you are a fan n the democratic party, pray that i'm ong about her again.

and las for hours. all day or night. w ms dual action. bring it onon. w ms dual action. yollllever go back toour old duster again.. [ pop ] ♪ d't, don't you want me?e? ♪ y kw i don't believe you u ♪ when n you yy that you don't n nd d me♪ [ fema a annouer ] why y go pof the way clean? swiffer r dusterxtender reaches up to three feet, go where others can't't anantraps and locks dust and allergens. swfefer eans better orour money back guaranteed. [ phone vibrates ] ♪ don't youou want meaby?

twtwididencal rooms. so why does this onene cost so much less on hotwire.com? when four r starotots have unsnsolroroom they use h hotwi to fill them,, you get them atat pris s wer than a a o oth travel site, guananed. h-o-t-w-i-r-e, hotwiwireomom

we turn now to our therapeuc ofanity correspoent, kent jones. >>es. hi, rachel. i rently read about a scientific experiment at claims that pe that swear can withstand pain better an peop that cannot swear. >> no way. >> sin i've been swearing many years now i decided to t this out for myself. take a look. researchers in england d an exriment when they made volunteers dunk their hand in a tuof ice water as long as possible while repeating tir favorite swearord like this [ bleep ]