ought to have enough to eat. surely we ought to be able to get a bipartisan consensus on that, and unfortunately in washington that idea has blown up. >> we declared the war on poverty, and then just decided to turn tail and run. margaret purvis, from food bank in new york, thank you for joining us. that is it for "all in." thank you for joining us, good evening, rachel. >> good evening, chris, thank you very much. and thank you for staying with us this hour. if things look slightly different, i'm in washington tonight. i had the opportunity today to sit down for an interview with senate majority leader harry reid. so on this show tonight, you will hear about what harry reid believes he took away from the republicans in the fight, and the consensus, and the landmark gay rights move he will make in the senate. and you will hear why he wants ted cruz to be the republican

nominee for president in 2016. he is quite adamant about it. that is coming up. also i should tell you that senator rand paul has finally responded to our reporting over the last two nights that he has just been reading whole sections ripped directly out of wikipedia in some speeches. rand paul has responded, not to us, but publicly in a totally inexplicable way. that is ahead. but we begin with news from boston, in boston, this is a very fancy place. named for this handsome devil who paid to build it in years past. some of the planning for the revolutionary war happened here. it is a place in boston you choose to make an announcement if your not is big, historical, first time it happened in the history of the nation kind of announcement. and it was in this room on april

12th, 2006, that the then governor of massachusetts, willard mitt romney sat down to sign his first legislation of health care reform law. nothing like it existed in the country back then. but republican mitt romney and the late democratic senator ted kennedy and a bunch of other folks from the state worked very, very hard to craft a law that made universal coverage possible in the great state of massachusetts. governor romney signed that law publicly with a big grin on his face back in 2006. well, today, president obama returned to that very room to talk about his signature health care law, which is based on what massachusetts did that worked so well in that state. the president was introduced by mitt romney's successor in massachusetts, governor duval patrick, and both the president and his friend, governor patrick, talked about what has gone wrong or can go wrong, with health care in your state.

they talked about what could go wrong in the initial rollout, what goes wrong and how that stuff can get fixed. >> but our launch seven years ago was not flawless. we asked an i.t. staffer who has been at our connecter since the beginning, what the start-up was like, and i'm quoting. we didn't have a consequence issue, but traffic piece, we experienced data mapping with planned detail that the carriers called us on. our provider searches were not good, and the website was a constant work in progress over the first few years, but other than that it was smooth. so we started out with a website that needed a lot of work. we had a lot of people with a lot of reasonable questions and not a good enough way to get them the answers. but people were patient. we had good leadership. and that same coalition stuck with it and with us to work through the fixes, tech surge,

and all. but every reasonable measure it has been a success for us here in the commonwealth of massachusetts. how do we know? how do we know? virtually every resident in the commonwealth is insured today. >> so health care reform in this state was a success. that doesn't mean it was perfect right away. there were early problems to solve. as duval just said, enrollment was extremely slow. within a month, only about 100 people had signed up. 100. but then 2000 had signed up. and then a few more thousand after that. and by the end of the year, 36,000 people had signed up. and the community all came together.

you even had the red sox helping people to get them covered. and pretty soon, the number of young uninsured people had plummeted. now, unfortunately, there are others that are so locked in to the politics of this thing that they won't lift a finger to help their own people. and that is leaving millions of americans uninsured unnecessarily. that is a shame. because if they put as much energy into making this law work as they do in attacking the law, americans would be better off. americans would be better off. >> what the president is talking about there when he says that the boston red sox helped to enlist people to get them to sign up for health insurance is this ad campaign you see here. this red sox-focused ads happened after the mitt romney law went into effect. the ads informed them about the law, encouraging them to sign up

for health insurance. in massachusetts, everybody loves the red sox, so if you have a big civic-minded thing to spread around, it is a no-brainer to have the red sox spread the message. it worked. so therefore, when they were trying to do a similar thing to spread the word about national health reform after it passed at the national level. the republican senators wrote a letter to the nfl threatening them that they better do no such thing. and so the nfl, tough guys that they are, backed out. so that way of spreading the word, which worked when the red sox did it in massachusetts, was successfully kiboshed by republicans for the national level. and that extends too, to the bipartisan support that democrats offered republican mitt romney in massachusetts when he started implementation of health reform in his state. whatever the opposite of

bipartisan support is, that is what president obama, of course, is getting from republicans at the national level. they want nothing to do with it. for his part, mitt romney felt it was necessary to issue a statement today on the occasion of the president's speech saying for the record, that he, mitt romney, never intended that the law in massachusetts should be used as a model for the nation. that was never what he wanted. he said in his statement today, nothing has changed my view that the plan crafted to fit the needs of a single state should not be grafted onto the entire country. nothing can change that view for mitt romney. he says he has always believed that massachusetts should not be a model for the nation. he has always believed that, mitt romney says. >> we have a model that worked. one state in america, my state, was able to put in place a plan that got everybody health insurance. the right way to proceed is to

reform health care, that we can do, as we did it in massachusetts, we can do it for the nation. we can get everybody insured. we can get the cost of health care down. >> how do you insure the 45 or 50 million americans not on the books? >> well, that is what we did in massachusetts, we put it on the exchange, the president is copying the idea. i'm glad to hear that. >> now, mitt romney insists he didn't mean any of that. he never insists that the plan should be copied at the national level. and that kind of insistence may be partly why he is not president. shutting down the government to repeal obama care proved to be a real debacle for the republican party, they were not able to repeal or de-fund the obama care in any way. since that debacle, the republicans have decided to change tactics, to hold hearings on why the law doesn't work better for more people. which is a great question, why is the law not working better? why are people getting conflicting information?

all good questions. it is weird at a base level that the questions are being posed by the same group of people who shut down the law. if you hate it so much, why do you care whether or not it works? today, secretary of health and human services kathleen sebelius testified before a republican house committee on problems with the rollout of the health care law. one republican congressman told her she was not in kansas anymore. another told her, he thought he saw her riding her bike in kansas when she was a child. it was a weird hearing. at one point, the secretary just said whatever. in the middle of an answer at a particularly badgering nonsense moment with a republican member of congress. the republican plan on health care was to pretend like it was not the law. then it was to shut down the government to demand that it not be the law. now the plan is maybe sort of trying to make it better. at least demanding that it be

better and demanding answers for why it is not better already. when the problems with obama care start to be resolved as they were in massachusetts when that state's law rolled into effect over a period of months and years, when the problems with this nationally start to settle out and it starts to work, then what should we expect from the republicans? the success of the massachusetts plan in his own state, totally politically flummoxed, as governor of massachusetts and presidential candidate. he never figured out to deal with it. or figured out how to deal with the success of the problem, he is still lying about it in easy to prove ways. if the obama care plan and the plan was similarly successful in massachusetts, how will republicans deal with that? what on earth are they going to say? [ male announcer ] if you can clear a crowd but not your nasal congestion,

you may be muddling through allergies. try zyrtec-d®. powerful relief of nasal congestion and other allergy symptoms -- all in one pill. zyrtec-d®. at the pharmacy counter.

today, 27 republican senators apologized for not wrecking the world economy. they voted to say that they wish they had wrecked it. these are the people that harry reid works with on a daily basis, my exclusive interview with harry reid is coming up next. plus, i need to tell you that senator rand paul has responded, kind of, on our recent reporting of rand paul plagiarizing some of his speeches. that is coming up.

when congress finally voted to reopen the government after a 16-day shutdown, that cost the economy in excess of $20 billion. but congress finally voted to reopen the government after 16 days. they voted also not to hit the debt ceiling on the very last day that it was possible to avoid hitting it. and the official history of what happened in washington that night they took those votes is that the adults in the republican party finally took over, right? the moderates, can we call them moderates?

the republicans who at least decided not to self-inflict a nationwide and potentially a world-wide economic catastrophe were allowed to cast their votes accordingly. so those votes were taken and we did not default on our debt and the catastrophe was avoided. we avoided the catastrophically destructive act because some in the republican party were sane enough to know they had to cast that vote. now, somebody is going to have to rewrite that official history. because now all the republican senators who voted not to crash the economy have disa vowed those votes, all of those 27 republicans that said we shouldn't default, all of them cast another vote say they disapprove of how they themselves voted on the original measure, they cast a disapproval of what they themselves voted against. two weeks after the shutdown, two weeks after that vote to not hit the debt ceiling, which republicans apparently now

regret. i asked senator harry reid what happened during the shutdown, why he decided not to give the republicans an inch, and whether we are just going to have another shutdown fight again, sometime soon. watch what he says, watch who he nominates for president here. check it out. >> my disappointment in all of this is not the people who live in some other political world that i don't understand. but my disappointment is the so-called moderates who went along with this vote after vote after vote. these people voted to terminate obama care 45 times. and as -- einstein said this, the pure definite of insanity is somebody who does something over and over again and expects a different result. that was my concern, that these so-called republicans went along with this crazy stuff.

>> i don't know that any republicans would allow themselves to become moderate anymore, it is such -- >> true. >> so what is going to happen in january and february, do you think we'll be back on the verge of a shutdown or a collapse again? >> the republican party is staggering right now. any poll, have rush limbaugh run a poll. no matter who did the poll, this has really hurt republicans. in the past, they have offended african-americans, now it is women, asians, the lgbt community, and others, in fairness. that was not good enough. then they took off after the poor lately, food stamps, the republican party is staggering. i don't know who they can expect to have a vote for them. i don't see it.

>> coming out of the shutdown -- >> they're not going -- >> out of the shutdown, obviously, ted cruz made a lot of money in that process. senator cruz was able to lead in a way that attracted a lot of attention to him. made him a household name and raised a lot of money for his pac and associated outside groups that he is with. i don't know that that increases his power within the senate, but it certainly, i think, brightened his political prospects. other than that, it seems like the only other person who emerged from that whole crisis, having accrued political power, in strategy, the part -- it is you. it seems like you have more political capital after that shutdown. >> well, ted cruz, i'm not going to say what that is, i really don't know. but ted cruz, i am sure this will help him raise more money. if i didn't care so much about the country, i would hope he got the nomination for president,

because that would mean the end of the republican party. >> in what sense? >> he stands for everything america doesn't. >> i have to ask you about -- while we're talking about senators on the other side of the aisle, tom coburn, at a fundraiser in new york this week, cursed your name. called you an absolute thing i can't say on television. you're a guy who has used unpolitically correct language before in sharp terms to criticize people you disagreed with before, but i got to ask you, what is going on with tom coburn? >> i don't know, i'm sure he didn't mean it. >> okay. >> he said that he wanted to meet with you, there after. has that meeting -- >> we had a meeting. it is all over with. >> senator harry reid, speaking with me at the u.s. capital today. here is the thing about interviewing harry reid in person, for being the head of

the senate he does not appear on tv all that often. i'm not sure he likes being on camera all that much. i didn't ask him, but i get that sense. but when you are with him in person and he tells you, we have had a meeting, it is all over with. it is different than it feels on camera. it reminds you that however softspoken he seems on camera, in person, he kind of seems like an ex-boxer from a wild west town in nebraska, he seems like the head of a former gaming commission that the mob tried to blow up in the '70s. the head of the majority tried to about this, when harry reid took over the gaming commission, quote, organized crime was investing in las vegas, and harry reid confronted guys like tony "the ant," who had been sent to las vegas. tony the ant was known for

killing victims by squeezing their heads in a vise. in 1989, harry reid personally banned him. and reid reported a bribe to the fbi and arranged a meeting with the guy in his office. by agreement, the fbi agents burst in to arrest the guy at the point where harry reid asked, is this the money? but although he was taking part in a sting, harry reid was unable to control his temper. the videotape shows him getting up from his chair and saying [ bleep ], you tried to bribe me. and then harry reid, on tape, with the fbi there tried to choke the guy, the guy got eight months in prison, and later married latoya jackson, seriously. we have more with our interview

today, including what harry reid thinks about cory booker, who is to be sworn in tomorrow. but when you see harry reid, there is something about the way he talks in person that is different in person than it is on camera. you have to trust me. it makes you remember where he comes from. trust me. we have more ahead. >> that must be music to the ears of frank sinatra who says he may eventually open a hotel casino now in las vegas, now that he once again has a nevada gaming license. the license was granted at a state hearing of the gaming commission. rick davis has that story. after frank sinatra got the approval of the board last week, few doubted he would get his gaming license, but few doubted he would get it. there were questions about a sinatra aide that was asked to break the legs of an opponent. he said it never happened. there were reports that he

carried two million dollars to lucky luciano in 1989. >> i never gave mr. luciano anything. i shook hands with him in a dining room. >> commission chairman harry reid said a few weeks ago he would have voted against sinatra, but has changed his mind. >> after learning more about you as a person, i'm now a sinatra a fan. >> after that, they agreed that the stories about him were stories spread by the news media. sinatra had few words for the media. >> i'm very happy it is all over. >> rick davis, nbc news. that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you.

so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call today to request a free decision guide to help you better understand what medicare is all about and which aarp medicare supplement plan works best for you. with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients... plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. there's a range of plans to choose from, too, and they all travel with you anywhere in the country. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp... an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it.

♪ call today. remember, medicare supplement insurance helps cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. expenses that could really add up. these kinds of plans could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you'll be able to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and there are virtually no referrals needed. so don't wait. with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. this easy-to-understand guide will answer some of your questions and help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan you.

right now, federal law prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, sex, nationality, religion, disability or age. to hire people at your business in the united states of america, you cannot hang up a shingle that says, old people or jews may not apply. to add to that long list of categories, heading into this week, there were three who were not on board of that anti-discrimination legislation. for whatever reason at the start of this week, senators pryor,

joe manchin, and bill nelson of florida have not said they supported this bill. but then, once senator harry reid said he would be putting that bill up for a vote between now and thanksgiving, all the three hold-out democratic senators decided they were going to get on board. so now, all the senators support that non-discrimination bill. and when new senator cory booker gets sworn in tomorrow, that means there will be 55 senators who will all vote yes on the anti-discrimination bill. and 55 out of a hundred, do the math, are the majority. but republicans are going to filibuster this bill, make it take 60 votes. they need five more votes. they need five more republicans to side with this thing if it will pass, lisa murckowski and orrin hatch voted for it. they're likely on board.

that gets it to 59, but there has to be 60. are there any other republicans who do not support discrimination against gay people? hard question to answer, turns out. ohio republican, rob portman came out in support of marriage equality recently when he announced his son is gay. but so far, rob portman will not commit on the discrimination issue. he says he is inclined to support the bill, but who knows? senator john mccain has been thought of as a maybe on the issue, and maybe he still is a maybe. but john mccain tried to explain his reservations on the bill to the huffington post yesterday, i have to think it may somehow have not come out right. when he was asked about the concerns he had about not backing the bill, he implied whether it is imposes quotas, or has equal rights, or for example, bussing, quotas were a failure.

john mccain continued, ask people in philadelphia if bussing was a great idea. who does he think is going to be bussed for a gay rights bill? does he think straight people will be bussed to the gay neighborhoods. does he know that everybody already lives everywhere, and this is just a "you can't discriminate." i don't know if this means that john mccain should be marked down as a no on the discrimination bill, but it should probably be fair to mark him as confused and upset about it. regardless of who may be giving him his latest bought of doubt. majority leader harry reid will bring this vote up soon. i got a chance to ask him about it. you announced before thanksgiving you would bring the employment nondiscrimination act

to the floor, which would be landmark gay legislation, which has languished for more than a decade, i believe. >> it was 1997. >> and you were an early supporter of it. >> why in the world should someone in modern-day america be allowed to be fired, have their employment be discriminated in any way, against, because of their sexual orientation. we should get this passed. i feel comfortable we can do that. with cory booker who will be here tomorrow. the 55 democrats, every one of my democrats support this legislation. two that didn't, came out today and they supported it. i'm proud of both of them. so i think without question we'll get at least five republicans to pass this, send it to the house. if the house again has any sense, and i hope they do, that they will pick this up and pass it. >> your home state, senator, on

the republican side, dean heller, is one of those republican senators that seems to be a maybe or at least unknown on this issue. i wonder if you had any insight on the nevada politics or feelings on this issue, if it would be a very hard vote for him to take it at home. >> rachel, i think we're beyond hard votes. easy votes. this is fairness. i mean, look around you. i'm saying that more -- look around you. i'm saying that to all of your viewers. why wouldn't we do this? why wouldn't we do this? so it is a hard vote, it is just the right vote. >> if harry reid is right and the landmark discrimination vote is about to pass the senate after decades of trying, then its next stop is the house where cynics think that john boehner will never let it happen, lay your bets now. cory booker, as you

for those nights when it's more than a bad dream, be ready. for the times you need to double-check the temperature on the thermometer, be ready. for high fever, nothing works faster or lasts longer. be ready with children's motrin.

more than 50 times a day? so brighten your smile a healthy way with listerine® whitening plus restoring rinse. it's the only rinse that makes your teeth two shades whiter and two times stronger. ♪ listerine® whitening... power to your mouth. cory booker, as you mentioned, will be sworn in and the latest edition to your democratic caucus. as you mentioned, there have been a high number of democrats who came to the senate, people who had high profiles before they got here. senator clinton, senator franken --

>> oh, yeah, she is terrific. >> cory booker is another one of those high profile democrats. i wonder if you feel there is sort of a model for democrats coming to the senate and being successful when they bring all that star power with them. >> you know, it is interesting to note those that come with star power, they're independent. frankly they're a little progressive. and they're unafraid. and the people you mentioned, think what hillary clinton did. think what this great woman did. she was first lady from arkansas. she moved to new york as elected senator from new york. i still remind her of how much courage that took. elizabeth warren. she had a job that she created for herself in the

administration. the republicans wouldn't give that to her. i'll bet today they wish they had. because she fought back. so i think that the profile of those two women and this good man, and for your viewers that may not know this, he is an african-american with stunning credentials. stamford, bachelor's degree, master's degree, tight end on the football team. >> and a good one. >> rhodes scholar. yale law school, what a record. and then as mayor, this man who came from an upper middle class family has lived in a mobile home most of the time, in part of the slums of the north, the city he runs. that is the kind of people we need in the senate. >> senator harry reid today ex pounding over the liberal democrats in the senate, expounding over elizabeth warren. senator warren, senator elect booker was on that flight this morning. she said it was really an

emotional moment at the airport, where his team from newark, where he has been mayor for several years, were there at the airport to see him off when he will be sworn in tomorrow. as soon as he is sworn in tomorrow, the new senator will find himself tied into that part of congress. tomorrow, the first of barack obama's nominees to the federal appeals court in washington is due to come up for a vote. the republicans say they will filibuster that nomination, not because they don't like anything about the nominee, but just because they don't want the president to appoint new judges to the court. this keeps happening, the republicans have changed

washington to make the u.s. senate a place where a super majority is required to do anything at all. not just constitutional amendments or treaties, but everything. i interviewed senator reid almost three years ago exactly about that being a problem in the senate back then. and at a time in 2010, he seemed quite determined to do something about it. why is it that everything takes these votes now? it used to be 60 votes was a headline. if somebody forced 60 votes, they were filibustering. if they did that, it meant they were standing for something. >> rachel, this has to change. it is wrong what they're doing. it never happened before. it happened in baseball, they got rid of it. the republicans all this time have abused the system and it is going to have to change. we're going to have to look at ways to change it. there should not be 60 votes in the senate. >> so you would support votes so that there wouldn't be 60 votes for everything? >> that is right, we're going to have to change some of it. i know how to do it. you can't have 60 votes being the vote of the day. it never has been that way before. >> well, today in washington,

all the hubbub was about the health reform hearing that we talked about at the top of the show. but honestly, there is no real drama or suspense, everybody knows how it turns out, then republicans move on to something else that lets them call the president a communist. we know how that one goes. there is no drama about health care, or suspense, the drama in washington right now, the suspense is whether or not the president is allowed to appoint federal judges anymore. judges to whom no one has any substantive objection. and the reason there is drama and suspense about that right now, is because despite what senator reid seemed to be leaning towards three years ago, is that the republicans used something in the filibuster to rule in a minority way. here is what the senator said that about that today.

watch his last line here. you and i spoke right before your re-election in 2010. we spoke about nevada, republicans making filibuster a standard in doing business in the senate. and you said at a time the filibuster had to be changed because the republicans in the senate were abusing it. do you regret having not changed the rule yet? >> no, we have changed quite a bit. i commented on it on the floor today. for example, when we get cloture on a non-cabinet spot or a noncircuit judge, they only have eight hours, so we can get rid of them quickly, instead of the 30 hours. we've done enough to streamline things, now have we done enough? time will tell. but we have made changes. >> because the standoff over the nominations keep happening, do you feel like the threat over the filibuster could actually be done away with, has become kind of an empty threat? >> well, i don't think so, because we got things done as a result of that. and i would just indicate how

things have changed. and we talked about that. it failed last time, 49 to 50. not 60 to 40. we didn't -- this is something the republicans have invented. we didn't -- there was no filibuster of everything. so things have changed. lyndon johnson, majority leader for six years. i have been the majority leader for six and a half years, or thereabouts. he had one filibuster he had to overcome. i am now up to about 30 or 40. >> don't you want to undo that? >> we believe -- rachel, we've changed things. and time will only tell whether there needs to be more change. stay tuned. >> okay. stay tuned. senator harry reid today promising that taking away the filibuster in the senate is still on the table. which of course, would change the dynamics of power in congress quite dramatically.

more from my interview with senator reid tonight, including whether the nsa is essentially an out-of-control agency that is not overseen by congress. also an answer to this question. i want to know if you took that personally, that they want to bring the republican party sort of in your face in the middle of the re-election effort. >> the senator's answer on whether or not he wanted the committee in las vegas next time when he is running for re-election, that answer and more, posted on maddo.com blog tonight. meanwhile, the answer from rand paul, and in his response he called me names and doesn't seem to understand what the word plagiarism means. but other than that he is pretty interesting. and that is straight ahead.

six days until the off-off year elections around the country, and the republican nominee to be the next lieutenant governor of virginia, is this man, the chaplain from chesapeake. he is known for being a fiery anti-gay, anti-muslim preacher, who says that democrats are anti-god. in the last poll, he is trailing his democratic opponent by 13

points, with less than a week ago before the election. here is what happened tonight when e e. w. jackson appeared. check this out. >> probably most of what they hear, the mainstream media, the opponent, is not true. >> did you say that gay people live a sick life-style? >> i never said that, i said the movement, the effort to change the culture is an effort to pervert things. >> never said that, e. j. jackson saying he never said that gay people are sick people roughly a year ago. here is e. j. jackson saying exactly that, roughly a year ago. >> their minds are perverted. they're frankly very sick people psychologically, mentally and emotionally. and they see everything through the lens of homosexually. when they talk about love, they're not talking about love, they're talking about homosexual sex. >> okay, so that e. j. jackson

did say that gay people were sick, that he denied saying. anything else we should clear up, sir? >> let me put this to you, reverend. you said u.s. armed forces are going to be punished by god, because of the end of "don't ask, don't tell." >> that is not true. >> categorically on tape. >> how can we expect our military to be blessed by theal mighty hand of god, god is not pleased. >> and it appears he is trying to convince people that he didn't say things that he said on tape. i love this election.

rand paul speaks. here's the big head lean tonight ♪ ...to wash any size load. it dissolves in any temperature, even cold. tide pods. pop in. stand out. 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.

you may be muddling through allergies. try zyrtec-d®. powerful relief of nasal congestion and other allergy symptoms -- all in one pill.

zyrtec-d®. at the pharmacy counter. rand paul speaks. here's the big head lean tonight on "the new york times" website, posted within the last hour. senator rand paul is accused of plagiarizing his lines from wikipedia. we reported that a speech senator paul gave at liberty university appeared partly plagiarized. senator paul spoke about a movie gattica. his descriptions were lifted basically verbatim from the wikipedia entry about that movie. the senator did not attribute his remarks to wikipedia, he lifted whole passages from the website and said them out loud as if they were his own word. rand paul gave the gattica wikipedia entry speech monday. we reported that exclusively here monday night. then on tuesday, yesterday, buzzfeed reported senator paul did the same thing with another movie, movie "stand and deliver." he spoke about that movie in a

speech earlier this year, again he plagiarized the wikipedia entry. last night we said paul also did it in march earlier. the wikipedia entry for stand and deliver, explains the main plot this way. quote, in the area of east los angeles california in 1982 in an environment that values a quick fission over education and learning, jaime escalante its a new teacher. that's wikipedia. here's rand paul. >> in the area of east l.a., in 1982, in an environment that values a quick fix on education over learning, escalante was a new math teacher at garfield high school. >> two clear cases of plagiarism from a sitting u.s. senator in two high profile speeches.

rand paul is not just any u.s. senator though. a senator who wants to be president. plagiarism scandals dogged presidential candidates, notably joe biden in 1988. took him a decade or more to recover. this sort of thing has happened before in recent american history. it has consequences for years and years when they do stuff like this. for two days now, senator paul and his office, responded to this evidence of plagiarism by basically not responding at all. the senator would not talk to us, would not talk to his hometown paper. would not talk to various news outlets that tried to get a comment from him on this. some explanation. he didn't want to talk about it. but tonight, jorge ramos arrived, comes to the rescue. senator paul sat down with jorge ramos of fusion tv. mr. ramos in the interview he asked about the instances of plagiarism. he put the charges to him. i will show you the entire exchange. before i do, i have to say it seems to me what is going on in

the exchange is that rand paul maybe does not understand what plagiarism is. an unexpected thing. judge for yourself. here isn't the response in its entirety. >> as a journalist, i have to ask you this question. msnbc accused you of plagiarism, stealing four lines from wikipedia for your speech at liberty university. is this true? they're saying that you, borrow lines from wikipedia entry about the movie gattica. so what happened? >> yeah, we did. >> you did? >> well, we, we borrowed the plot lines from gattica, a movie, i gave credit to the people who wrote the movie. i also borrowed lines from ray bradbury and gave him credit as well. i think they're arguing about whether things are properly footnoted. there are technicalities to this. but nothing i said was not given attribution to where it came from.

i talked about a movie, gattica. it is a copyrighted movie by the screen writers, i gave every bit of credit to where that plot line came from. the rest of it is making a mountain out of a mole hill from people, i think basically who are political enemies and have an ax to grind. >> because it seems that it is not the first time. the web site buzzfeed they said that you borrowed several lines from wikipedia for a speech in june -- >> i think once again. i think once again. >> the movie stand and deliver. >> once again, a disagreement on how you footnote things. i think people footnote things different in an academic paper than in a public speech. if we were to present any speeches for publication that have foot notes. and the speech, take the time to foot note things. i think it was very clear the plot line was not something i created. i didn't claim that i created the movie gattica. that's what is absurd. the plot line from gattica

belongs to one person, the screenwriter. i gave him credit for that. ridiculous to say you didn't do proper footnotes. >> do you write your own speech s, senator. >> a lot of people participate, not attributable to one person. of my speeches there has never been any indication that i am trying to take credit for some one else's work. so really this is -- really about -- information and attacks coming from haters. the person who its leading this attack, she has been spreading hate on me for about three years now. i don't intend for it to go away, i don't see her as an on joke tiff news source. >> senator, you can call me whatever names you want few. trust me high have been called worse. this is not a personal thing for me at all. i feel no emotion about this, i do not hate you or try to spread hate on you. i am sorry you feel that way.

also you didn't borrow plot lines from the movies, you read the wikipedia page out loud. the point is that you seem to have a habit of plagiarizing part of your speeches. you do not understand what plagiarism is. nobody is accusing you that you wrote gattica or stand and deliver, that's not what this as it but. not about explaining a plot line. lifting entire sections of a website. inserting them in your speeches and passing them off as your own original thoughts. this is something that high school students know not to do. you are presenting yourself as potential canned date for president. it has nothing to do with me. you heard senator paul there say, "nothing i said was not given attribution to where it came from." that is absolute and provably not true. senator somebody else's published word ended up in your speech without attribution. how did that happen? do you understand that is a