death and taxes. let's play hardball. good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start tonight with this. call me a charlie rangel fan. today i watched him at the hearings on the irs mess. i heard him say everything i believe, it's this -- if you have a problem in a company or on a team or a government agency, you deal with it. it's the only sure way to convince people that what they're seeing as bad has been removed. if you want the company or team or government agency or government itself to look bad, just hoot and holler and say how bad things are, but don't fix the problem, just let them sit there and smell up the whole

barrel. let themstring up all the apples. charlie rangel did a lot here. what i'm impressed by is the lawmaker who wants to fix the problem because he believes in what government can be positively. i've got two members of the house ways and means committee joining me tonight. i want to start with congressman rikert. let's look at the tape and react to what we saw. let's listen. >> the reality is this is not a personnel problem. this is a problem with the irs being too large, too powerful, too intrusive, and too abusive of honest, hard-working taxpayers. >> is this still america. is this government so drunk on power that it would turn its full force, its full might to

harass and intimidate and threaten an average american who only wants her voice and their voices heard? >> you get a letter from your folks or a phone call, it's with terror that you look at it. now this kind of reconfirms that, you know what? they can do almost anything they want to anybody they want any time they want. >> the bottom line is for those looking, this is an audit, and it's helpful, but it's the tip of the iceberg. it's the tip of the iceberg. >> is the problem, as you see it, the fact that we have an irs, the fact that we have an internal revenue service that collects the federal income taxes from individuals and corporations, or is problem is you've got some real bad culture where people can look you in the eye and say i'm not prejudiced, i'm not political, but they are. what is the problem? >> well, i was hopeful today to hear some straight answers from

mr. miller. it didn't happen. as the viewers participated in the conversation and answering questions and answers, it became very obvious very quickly that mr. miller was not there to take responsibility. in fact, he said look, i'm not comfortable with the word "targeted." that didn't go on. he offered an apology but then he offered excuses immediately after that. he wouldn't even in my questioning acknowledge the fact that certain groups were treated differently. he answered -- in fact, he answered no to that question. and then when i asked him is it not your responsibility to provide the information that you knew about this situation to congress, he would not answer that question, so chris, you know, today i think was really a sad day for america as people watched this interview, because it starts with the leadership,

and the leadership today in the irs showed arrogance, showed a lack of concern, and in my opinion, just short of brushed the opinion aside. >> i don't know what i saw, but i certainly saw a disconnect today. that mr. miller guy, i don't know what he was -- it's like he didn't see what he knew people certainly right, left, and center could see, that when you target particular groups, you're targeting particular groups. i mean, if this were on the other foot and this was the george w. administration, they were targeting groups that were calling themselves progressives, i don't think it's complicated. what's your view? >> my view is that the criteria were very inappropriate. there was terrible mismanagement. i think there was very terrible oversight. and there was a failure to be in touch as they should have been with the congress.

but the i.g., the inspector general when asked was there any political motivation for the people who were in the exempt organization in cincinnati, the lower level people who are working on this, he said no. to any outside influence, he said no. so when the chairman -- and i brought his language -- started off his opening remarks saying it's the latest example of a culture of cover-ups in this administration, there was no evidence today to support that, it was -- >> a familiar response in washington. mistakes were made. but he said any my handling of cases by the irs had nothing to do with partisanship. let's listen. >> as acting commissioner, i want to apologize on behalf of the internal revenue service for the mistakes that we made and the poor service we provided. i think that what happened here was that foolish mistakes were

made by people trying to be more efficient in their workload selection. the listing described in the report while intolerable was a mistake and not an act of partisanship. >> congressman reichert, i respect everything you're doing here. i'm just questioning that some of the thinking that the chairman of the committee. is there any evidence on your side of the aisle that there was any interference from the white house? >> i think it's important to remember that what we heard in the committee hearing today was that this is an audit, and that the investigation, although the -- mr. george could not confirm verbally in the hearing that the investigation was continuing, i think that's the impression he left upon all of us in the committee. there is an ongoing investigation. the audit occurred, now the investigation occurred, but you can draw your own conclusion, and so can your viewers. >> did they find out who was the one who said look for patriot

groups, calling themselves patriot groups, look for groups that have tea party to their names. do we know who that was now? >> i don't think we have all the names. the people who did that were mistaken. it was a serious mistake. but you asked mr. reichert a question. was there any evidence of this hearing to support the statement by chairman camp? and again, i read it. it was part of a culture of cover-up in this administration. there was no evidence whatsoever at this hearing. the i.g. when asked said it was not politically motivated, and there was no outside influence, and there is no evidence of corruption. >> mr. levin is correct, and the i.g. is correct, because he did stipulate this as well. he found that there was no evidence of white house evidence or obama campaign influence. if that's correct, is it still appropriate to say culture of corruption throughout the government and this is an example of it, if it had nothing to do with the presidential influence at all? >> i don't tnk that's proven

yet. >> but if it is, is that the end of the charge? >> mr. levin may say -- no, i don't think that is the end of this charge. because we have a duty to find out what happened in the irs. >> sure you do. >> why were certain people -- >> look, okay, here's the question. if you have no evidence right now this friday of any white house involvement and you don't have any evidence next week and the week after that, when do you stop accusing the white house of being corrupt in this regard? >> i'm not accusing -- >> at what point do you say we don't have evidence, we can't keep calling them corrupt? >> chris, i'm not accusing the white house of anything. i haven't made that statement at all. >> the culture of corruption from this administration, what's that mean? >> that's not coming from me. i didn't say that. look, i'm an old cop. i want to base what i say on facts. >> good. >> so today, i was looking for facts from mr. miller. mrmiller did not provide any facts, chris. listen to the testimony. there were no facts, mr. levin, that mr. miller provided to this

country as to why and how this criteria was applied. >> mr. reichert, i want mr. levin to take a minute. what do you want done here? i personally want to see the bad apples thrown out of the barrel and i'm not going to be satisfied watching as typical person, if you've got a big problem, there's got to be a big solution. two people isn't enough. the american people aren't going to believe if they've got the same people there, the same problem there. charlie rangel said there's a cancer here, you've got to remove it. do you agree with mr. rangel? >> i think there has to be action. i was the first democrat to say that mr. miller should be relieved of his responsibilities, and so mitch learner -- i said that a few days ago. i believe we need to get to the bottom of it. just don't throw apples at the top if you have no evidence to support it. and in the hearing today, there was no such evidence.

we should have a nonpartisan hearing, not look for political points. >> okay. thank you very much. coming up, the scandal that wasn't benghazi. thomas pickering handles the investigation. this afternoon he learned he's been subpoenaed to testify in private next week about his investigation. he'd prefer to talk in public. tonight, we'll give him the chance. also, republican s are gleeful n their outrage over the irs, that republicans are not bringing any legislation, in other words, pass nothing and keep the scandal industry going. plus, our series, the unkindest cut. how sequester cuts are endangering critical medical research that actually could affect you. and if you believe that evolution is a lie or that you can just stop being gay, then the republican senate primary down in georgia is made for you. this is "hardball," the place for politics.

[ agent smith ] i've found software that intrigues me. it appears it's an agent of good. ♪ [ agent smith ] ge software connects patients to nurses to the right machines while dramatically reducing waiting time. [ telephone ringing ] now a waiting room is just a room. [ static warbles ] there was this and this. she got a parking ticket... ♪ and she forgot to pay her credit card bill on time. good thing she's got the citi simplicity card. it doesn't charge late fees or a penalty rate. ever. as in never ever. now about that parking ticket. [ grunting ] [ male announcer ] the citi simplicity card is the only card that never has late fees, a penalty rate, or an annual fee, ever. go to citi.com/simplicity to apply.

you get 5% back, on everything. everything. everything. everything. everything? [ all ] everything? everything. [ male announcer ] get free shipping and 5% back on everything your business needs. that was easy. starts with ground beef, onions and peppers baked in a ketchup glaze with savory gravy and mashed russet potatoes. what makes stouffer's meatloaf best of all? that moment you enjoy it at home. stouffer's. made with care, for you or your family. i'm goining to dream about t that steaka. i'i'm going toto dream about thatat tiramisu.u. whwhat a nightht, huh? but, u um, can thehe test drivie be over nonow? head b back to the d dealership?p? [ mamale announcncer ] it's praractically y yours. but we stitill need yourur signaturere. volklkswagen sigign then dririe is back. anand it's nevever been eaeasir to get a a passat. that's's the powerer of german n engineerining. get $0$0 down, $0 0 due at sig, $0 depososit, anand $0 firstst month's p pt on any n new volkswawagen. vivisit vwdealaler.com tododay.

welcome back. this week, the white house tried to put to rest talk of some massive politically motivated cover-up on benghazi releasing 100 pages of e-mails showing exactly how and by whom the talking points for that appearance on sunday morning's meet the press by susan rice was put together. but republicans seemed far from satisfied. >> you don't have to be sherlock holmes to figure this out. the story of benghazi, if accurately reported, would undercut the narrative bin laden is dead and al qaeda is on the run, and they manipulated the evidence to help their political re-election, that's pretty obvious. >> that was lindsey graham speaking after the white house released all those e-mails, showing it was the cia who played the largest role crafting the talking points in the end. one man who knows more about what happened in benghazi than

anyone on the planet is ambassador thomas pickering. he co-chaired an independent review of the attacks. ambassador pickering has a legendary career as a diplomat serving both diplomats and republicans in many of the world's hottest spots. re concluded there were failures in management deefficienciey -- deficiencies at the state department. let's listen to congressman issa's recommendation. >> the fact is we don't want to have some sort of a stage show. we had fact witnesses, they testified. we had the ambassador and admiral mullen who conducted and oversaw, we're inviting them on monday, we'll go there -- not in front of the public, but in a nonpartisan way questions and answers, and obviously a hearing to follow at an appropriate time. >> this afternoon, u.s. congressman issa took the next step, issuing a subpoena for ambassador pickering.

he wrote in light of your continuing refusal to appear voluntarily for a transcribed interview, i found it necessary to issue a subpoena to compel your appearance at a deposition. what's your response to this, sir? >> well, i've just seen this, chris. certainly i'm consulting with the state department and the lawyers there. my response, i hope we'll find a way to move ahead. i've always wanted a public hearing. apparently that's not going to be in the offing. i think that's a serious mistake. this is a serious step. and obviously i take it that way. i'm interested and finding a way to make sure that our report is defended, that i answer all the questions. my hope is to do so in public because the public deserves to know. >> when you think -- when you're explaining to people who really seem to have -- i didn't know the gentleman, everybody loved him, ambassador chris stevens, he struck me as a diplomat willing to take some reasonable

calculated risks, willing to go into areas that aren't completely protected. we can't put a bunch of uniformed men into a country that we don't have a colonial connection to like libya. you can't have lots of people around, especially if you're covering a cia facility. lots of factors here. do you think there was any way to have protected him short of him not having gone to benghazi that day? >> yes, i believe there was. in our report, i listed the shortcomings that may well have helped in that regard. this is only a guess. chris was a wonderful ambassador. chris worked for me for two years. i admired his work. he had absolutely the right concept. americans need to get out and talk to people and understand what things are happening in these countries overseas. >> i was a peace corps volunteer, and i think it's wonderful when these guys and women become diplomats because they don't hide in the compound and eat hamburgers and watch super bowls.

they meet people. you know what i mean. he wasn't the striped pants guy. i've got david corn here. we were talking, mr. ambassador, here's some good questions. >> i have a question for you, mr. ambassador. you guys put out a very thorough report, unclassified version, but there also was a classified version of your report. we don't expect you to talk about it right here. but is there a way to fully understand what happened in benghazi and the security challenges there without really knowing what was going on and what you described as the annex. it seems like we're only getting a part of the story because a lot that was going on there was classified. >> yeah, to the best of my recollection, action at the annex was also covered in the unclassified report, particularfully the discussion of what happened on the night of september 11th, 2012. i would ask you to read that.

i think was done with care. it avoided the classified, but i think it's there. certainly that action was important in looking at the whole picture, and we reviewed it. >> but in terms of the security position there and what was happening before the attack, and whether there should have been more security or less security and why these sites are targeted, i mean, those ssort o questions. it seems as if you have to tiptoe around those issues. >> i didn't in the classified report, obviously, but i think our report was heavily focused on the state department facility. that's correct. i think it is important to know that in our report, we listed a number of shortcomings. we held people responsible. it was a tough report. it was not an easy report for us to put together. all of that, if there are people who have questions and if chairman issa has questions, i want to respond to all his questions, but i would certainly prefer to do it in public just as the criticisms of our report were made part of the public

record, and my sense is that we have answers to those questions. i've spoken in a number of places about them. i'll be glad to speak to you about them here. >> i think there's two questions that loom out there for the average person that reads the paper. why wasn't hillary clinton examined by you since she was apparently on the phone several hours after first attack. let's start with that one. why didn't you interview her? >> sure there are two pieces there. one, we had a good discussion with her just about a week before we wound up. that discussion took place after we had completed a number of our findings, including the fact of who made the decisions that affected security in benghazi, and who. >> -- who reviewed those decisions. the second piece was on the night of, she had meetings, we reviewed a number of the events at those meetings with the people who attended those meetings. had we had any additional questions, we would have asked them. there were no additional questions with respect to that. and i believe that we covered that thoroughly.

>> the strange thing is -- and we cover the news here almost 24/7 around here. i didn't know that hillary was even on the phone with tripoli until a couple of days ago. so wasn't that important to you to make sure that that was highlighted, that she was engaged in the early troubleshooting here, and after the tragedy was exposed? >> i believe that was covered in our report. certainly it was something we knew about. it was my understanding at the time that it had been in the public, but i could be wrong there, chris. >> okay, thank you very much. >> thanks, chris, very much. coming up, when you're right, you're wrong? the candidates in the republican senate primary in georgia are practically tripping over each other, saying the most extreme things down there. we'll be back with some of the craziest. this is "hardball." changing the world is exhausting business. with the innovating and the transforming and the revolutionizing. it's enough to make you forget that you're flying five hundred miles an hour on a chair that just became a bed.

you see, we're doing some changing of our own. ah, we can talk about it later. we're putting the wonder back into air travel, one innovation at a time. the new american is arriving. are you flo? yes. is this the thing you gave my husband? well, yeah, yes. the "name your price" tool. you tell us the price you want to pay, and we give you a range of options to choose from. careful, though -- that kind of power can go to your head. that explains a lot. yo, buddy! i got this. gimme one, gimme one, gimme one! the power of the "name your price" tool. only from progressive. [ male announcer ] start with a dodge dart. now give it a "tiger shark" engine and 41 mpg. good. now add some of this. and that. definitely him. and her. a little more of her. perfect. time out. how we doin'? [ car accelerating ]

okay, let's take it up a notch. give it a heap of this, one of those, and that. got anything with grappling hooks and a plane? [ explosions ] yeah, that'll work. ♪ [ male announcer ] book ahead and save up to 20 percent at doubletree.com, so you can sit back, relax and enjoy. doubletree by hilton. where the little things mean everything.

ha! now to the sideshow. this past week was a banner one for minnesota congresswoman michele bachmann with the 37th house vote. on top of that, bachmann's first 2014 campaign ad has hit tv screens in minnesota. 17 months before the election out there. any guesses on the subject matter? >> great news, the u.s. just passed my bill to repeal obama care. obama care promised us lower costs and a better health care system. but the truth is just the opposite. passing my bill is just the first step toward lower costs and improved health care. >> i've been watching these for years. her pollster is telling her she's got wickedly bad numbers on the issue of effectiveness.

all she does is give right-wing speeches. she's trying to prove he's doing something, which she isn't. mother jones found some whoppers in the quote file for the three republican candidates down there. all currently u.s. congressmen. here goes on the subject of why same-sex parents should not be able to adopt children. if they wanted a baby bad enough, they could make that choice. in other words, just don't be gay. next on the subject of evolution, john kingston said i believe i came from god, not a monkey. i don't believe that a creature crawled out of the sea and became a human being one day. is that what evolution is? finally, before obama care was passed, paul brown said, if obama care passes, that free insurance card that's in people's pockets is going to be as worthless as a confederate dollar after the war between the states, the war of yankee aggression. there's interesting thinks. that's "hardball" for now. coming up, "your business."

lily...she pretty much lives in her favorite princess dress. but once a week i let her play sheriff so i can wash it. i use tide to get out those week old stains and downy to get it fresh and soft. you are free to go. [ dad ] tide and downy together.

[ harrison ] is there anything you would not do for your family? punch it. ♪ [ male announcer ] back here on earth, your family is your crew. you would do everything in your power to protect them. that's why there's lifelock. and introducing lifelock junior. call 1-800-lifelock or visit lifelock.com/trek today and see star trek: into darkness, in theatres may 17th. rated pg-13.