top stories from r.t. at ten pm moscow time a chain of explosions rips through a city in eastern ukraine it's left dozens injured in what police are saying was a set of terrorist attacks a new cyber security bill slammed by internet use this is an attack on privacy and it gets a step closer to the white house but president obama threatens to veto it if it passes the senate. the three man crew who successfully lands in kazakhstan after six months aboard the international space station we bring you more of the program from mission control in russia half an hour from now. the economic blows continue to rain on spain its credit rating takes another hit while unemployment reaches a critical twenty five percent you're up to date with the latest from moscow with me in time now to sift through the spin next sixty minutes in the company of

a loner in washington d.c. . welcome to the lower show where we get the real headlines with none of the mercy i can live in washington d.c. now tonight we're going to talk fifth book cyber security flash privacy crushing bill is up for debate on the house floor so we're going to find out what lawmakers are proposing to change after the white house issued a veto threat then said of the marco rubio gave a foreign policy speech yesterday preaching the need for america to continue to be a leader and for an interventionist foreign policy but let's face it his points don't all add up so we're going to break down the inconsistency of the messaging problem that neo cons are now facing and wal-mart ism roiled in a bribery scandal in mexico so we're going to talk about the foreign corrupt

practices act and whether it actually helps or hurts businesses while all of that i'm worth it and i including a dose of happy hour but first take a look at the mainstream media has decided to miss. well there are some new juicy details coming out of the secret service scandal today and so the mainstream media of course is all over it. the point is now today about the secret service prostitution scandal in a politician on the hot seat this morning in the secret service sexual scandal secret service investigation continues about the scandal in colombia we will not allow the actions of the few to tarnish the proud legacy of the secret service the secret service prostitution scandal is getting the full attention of the senate judiciary committee over sex behavior in the secret service was not limited to colombia six secret service officers have lost their jobs or seventh has been cleared of serious misconduct and others information that

a new prostitution scandal may be brewing the agency's failed protocol is being addressed given the need to protect america's leadership six employees of either resigned or left the agency a seventh has been cleared of serious misconduct in what way is appropriate administrative action in terms of this kind of agrees this animal behavior hiring prostitutes it's never happened. all right so like i've said before this is an obvious scandal this is also like media catnip so am i surprised that they just can't get enough of course not but it's the seriousness with which they talk about of the times when discussing the threat that this might be to national security that kind of tickles me now that it wouldn't be a big deal and a national security issue of secret service agents were too hopped up on drugs and tired from their all night session with a local prostitute to actually protect the president from an attack or an assassin or god knows what more of the picking and choosing of concern of when something is a national security threat and when it isn't as obviously doesn't just apply to the

media right it starts with the government but since the mainstream media has no mind of its own and just regurgitates what the government says well then the government dictates the terms of what's a big deal and what isn't and obviously sometimes this breaks down along partisan lines because it helps a certain party the way if the g.o.p. is loving the hell out of this scandal but anyway let me get to my main and more important points here and that would be not only the double standard imposed on what's ok to legal release to the public and what isn't but also the fact that it is just so damn blatant it is so obvious these people have no shame point number one for the evening you know piece in time by peter bergen examines the last days of osama bin laden now he got to tour the compound in a body bag before it was destroyed he got the inside scoop on how the decision was ultimately made hell he even has a copy of the memo that leon panetta signed while he was still cia chief after he got the order from the president to go ahead and launch the rate and all this of

course is totally ok this clearly was done in cooperation with the government just think about this graham allison also wrote a piece in this month's time about the raid and had what they described as quote an extraordinary behind the scenes report where he got access to top decision makers and over one hundred hours of interviews and reveals that then defense secretary robert gates and vice president joe biden both voted against the raid and then explains why obama overruled that. now most people out there are probably thinking cool we could an inside look but how about asking why is this inside look ok while others aren't let's not forget that this administration refuses to release the photos of osama bin laden after he was killed because they fear that it could damage national security and cause a reaction abroad but apparently a memo that signed off on that killing doesn't have the ability to anger anybody your brother was a fan of osama bin laden so the whole premise is silly because the government can make the argument that literally everything under the sun could possibly damage

national security in some way including that memo but they choose not to right because certainly they allow certainly they like certainly they put out there on purpose but again it's a complete double standard because if you do something without the government's approval you'll be probably prosecuted maybe charged with aiding the enemy under the espionage act as we just played so many times before on this show in the war on whistleblowers has been waged by this administration. now i think you get the point but let me just throw one more example your way reports out today say that a senior administration official has confirmed the white house has approved the expansion of the cia's drone program in yemen so now they can launch signature strikes and signature strikes are the ones where they can strike without knowing exactly who the target so here we have the cia drone program it's supposed to be a secret and they argue that they cannot confirm or deny the existence of in court when they're questioned about it and then once again it is splashed all over the

pages of every major newspaper in the country it's infuriating to say the least but the problem is that the media plays along with it they roll with it so the every now and then they can get those leaks of the leaks of the government actually wants to get out it's really become a sick dependence and they know it but they'd rather not talk about it so that's why the mainstream media hopes you won't notice and chooses to miss. cispa or the cyber information sharing and protection act is the hot topic of the day with a vote to possibly come tomorrow debate on the house floor began today with a number of amendments being taken up that was also comes on the heels of the white house issuing a veto threat yesterday to this bill if it remained as originally written now for a refresher system would allow private companies to hand over your personal communications and data to the government if they see it as

a fiber threat to their network and as originally written what the government could do with that data which agencies could get their hands on it clothing the n.s.a. well there were no limits to that but we do seem to be getting somewhere as advocacy groups have been pushing hard against the privacy demolishing bill and least armaments of our debate right but the only thing is are any of these amendments actually good enough or is it still a major threat to your civil liberties or joining me to discuss it is trevor tim activists at the elect. on a friend here foundation trevor thanks so much for joining us tonight and for starters can you tell us a little bit more about this hearing today if you were monitoring at all what people what the members of congress are saying because i have a distinct memory of everyone being in a collective state of shock when soap i went up for debate as to how uninformed so many of these lawmakers were great so they brought the bill to the house floor today which means the whole house gets debated and they've been talking about

a couple dozen amendments all day and actually we just found out a couple minutes ago that you know the vote was actually scheduled for tomorrow that the bill's author mike rogers has moved up to tonight so it's possible they actually might vote on the full bill within a couple minutes actually and these amendments are troublesome in some respects because the rajah's amendments which got a full vote and most of them will probably go through are kind of just cosmetic changes to the bill he's been going around claiming that he's working with the privacy community and these these amendments you know please kate what we want to do but actually in fact these amendments do nothing complain about the mean problems in the bill that we've been playing about and he's using them as kind of a smokescreen to allow other congressmen to believe it's ok to vote on it and that i mean you would you and i have spoken about this before but since there are they might vote on it tonight that means that people are actually in agreement that the

they think that they can actually get this passed. well personally i think he's actually moving the boat up because. the winds have changed and it's actually going in the other direction and just a couple hours ago we heard that a suspect co-sponsor is going to vote no some of the amendments that were substantial in that would have taken the power out of the n.s.a.'s hands to get this information or requirement for personal information or another force companies to anonymize this information all of those were allowed to go to a vote in the house floor because rogers didn't want them and you know he gave no substantial reasons for this and he says that is no evidence cover privacy issues when they in fact don't so but as we've seen throughout the day there have actually been a lot of house members who have drawn attention to these dangerous privacy concerns and how this bill will destroy civil liberties but i think he sees that he needs to get this vote in as soon as possible because if you wait another day it might be

too late well you know already yesterday we had the white house issued a statement a veto threat to this and what do you what do you think about that right in terms of how much pressure that might put on them as of congress that are about to or you know members of the house they're about to vote on a ball so why do you think i did that right because we can't say that this administration is particularly privacy friendly or civil liberties at friendly and anyway so you know why did they choose to actually step up and take this position. well they were pushing different cyber security legislation for a few months now and this bill is much broader and much more privacy invasive than their bill is they actually agree with us basically of this bill they said yesterday that this is an cybersecurity bill is turning into an intelligence bill where the n.s.a. and other intelligence agencies and military will get to read it americans communications they're handed over from the companies so in that respect we agree with you about it mr schumer happy to see their their veto threat and i think this

is just kind of one side of many that mike rogers is seeing that the tide is turning against him there was a bunch of free market republican groups that came out the other day saying they were against this for ron paul is against this but so it's kind of all sides are or all you know all sides of the spectrum that are have started to realize the i.o.c. dangers and hopefully i mean we don't know what's going to happen in this vote in a few minutes but. you know hopefully to the tide turned enough where everyone will know well let me ask you about something to you so clearly you know you are part of this campaign of trying to get people to be aware about this bill of rights trying to get more people on board in terms of opposition to this bill and so the center for democracy and technology is one of these advocacy groups that was opposed to pledge sation then when some of the amendments were brought up they decided that hey actually now we're going to support it and we would be ok with it going through

turns out that they made a deal with the homeland you know with the actual committee then when the white house released their veto threat the center for democracy and technology decided never mind were against it again you know how often does that happen and you know does that does that hurt the effort when you have an advocacy group playing games like that making promises to committee members that they won't criticize something . well this was an interesting situation because i think what actually happened was i mean if there had been a host of other groups have been against this bill from the start and even with substantial the amendments that we wanted we still would have opposed it because it still would have a crush on civil liberties but the center for democracy and technology had been working with mike rogers to actually get these substantial of amendments up for a vote and they had made a statement not saying that they would support the bill but if these amendments came up for a vote that they would not oppose it and mike rogers then came out with a statement saying oh is there for democracy democracy for technology is on board and then all of

a sudden rogers pulled the rug out from under him and said actually the amendments that you asked for we're not going to vote on and so he used it as kind of a marketing ploy where he could tell other people that civil liberties groups are being are you know happy with this bill when in fact the opposite is true so they and they got. a little bit last thing that i want to ask you to is that cash might help run for him say that some of this is actually based on a model something at the f.b.i. has been using for years and tell us more about that. right so there it is the f.b.i. has kind of found a way to do this without a bill allowing companies to share information with them that they normally otherwise wouldn't share and then we can see this from the other the other way to you know this bill allows the government to share information companies a company's share of the government the government has already been sharing cyber threat information with hundreds of companies and actually wants to expand that program now for almost

a year and this is exactly what this bill is and is is made to do so we have to wonder why is this bill even needed if they think they already have this ability and that's where i was and i have to i'm so i got to wrap it up because running out of time but definitely we'll be catching back up with you and we'll see if this fall might happen during our show tonight to thank so much for joining us starting slot. i would taking a quick break but still to come taking a lighthearted look at how an earmark ban is effective for deprived lobbyists and over speaking with us about how the g.o.p. is a foreign policy that's up against obama's. secret laboratory. to build these most sophisticated robots which doesn't give a darn about anything tim's mission to teach creation why it should care about

humans. which is why you should care only. well this week the house g.o.p.

freshmen are doing their best to bring earmarks back now it's right the very same g.o.p. freshman that sparked a bi bipartisan effort to get your marks to be banned. terminal rattled establishment they're off to a flying start after mr washington establishment himself senator mitch mcconnell is even waiting for them to be sworn in before conceding to the ban on earmarks. so they rode into congress on a wave of fiscal responsibility calling earmarks wasteful and corrupt but in less than two years later they're now realizing that in a culture where the votes go to the highest bidder winning over voters isn't all that easy we don't have taxpayer funded party favors to hand out in your district so sixty five of the eighty seven house g.o.p. freshman are now calling for the house to consider a tariff bill that would violate the two year moratorium on earmarks as a blogger see at its finest by the politicians aren't actually the only ones that are struggling to get through their earmark withdrawal symptoms this band has hit k street hard forcing earmark centric lobbying firms to lay off their pork barrel

leeches and some firms have even had to close all together check out how bad it's gotten. he favors a moratorium on those congressional earmarks that spending many of them consider just wasteful backing a two year ban on earmarks in these challenging days we can't afford what are called your marks take the final step and put aboard tory money or march i say no more earmarks we've got to get it out.

the bill would make a ban on earmarks permanent and it would do so in a fashion that closes the loophole that allows the band to be circumvented today. hi. i'm a former lobbyist but on that fateful day two thousand i think just everything. i'm here to ask you to help for obvious like me who's natural habitat is being threatened by the earmarks. for just four hundred seventy dollars you can sponsor avi's your sponsorship will help ensure that we have life's necessities like the large tusks that have the latest suit from brooks brothers you will receive a photo of your hobbies and a letter from to tell you they're trying to struggle to post a street you also see receive it trying to hire lobbyists contacts that they used

to work like this through a bridge to nowhere. you don't know when your marks will return. but. you can. become a sponsor. too. well if the house g.o.p. nubes get their way earmarks might be on the fast track to reinstatement those pushing for the tariff bill say that although they look like earmarks they actually aren't how convenient right they also say that although lowering targeted tariffs would directly benefit companies in the districts of the congress members proposing them it's not about buying votes in an election year yeah right so if it looks like a duck and acts like a duck you guys know the rest. yesterday we got quite the taste of the rising neo-con star seven or marco rubio's foreign policy speaking at the brookings institution he took the idea of american exceptionalism to the next level

rubio addressed the current debate over whether america should back off stick to itself or continue to be the global policeman and worldwide interventionist and let's just say that rubio likes intervention he would as far as saying if there are no global problems that can be solved without us while preaching about the dangers of iran the necessity of acting in syria getting rid of assad the fact that everything in every corner of the world affects our national interests and that includes yemen pakistan afghanistan and somalia there is clear disregard for the idea that other nations foreign policy is allowed to be about their national interests not to mention the war in iraq the nearly eight year intervention debacle that cost thousands of lives billions and treasure perhaps an unmistakable amount of worldwide reputation somehow that wasn't even mentioned once so if this is the future of the republican party and their foreign policy is the g.o.p. in trouble joining me to discuss it is james fallows forbes contributor and daily

caller columnist james thanks so much for joining us tonight and i'm going to start off with something that you wrote actually about this speech you said that it proves that obama has the g.o.p. beat on foreign policy so go on tell us more. sure well obama's foreign policy is pretty incoherent itself he's been pretty good at dealing with things that are urgent and not so good at dealing with things that are important and if we don't figure them out now they're really going to come to bite us and you know over the next five or ten years nonetheless his foreign policies is managed to be such a hodgepodge that he's put the conservatives republicans into a corner and he's pulling it drawing out all of their disagreements and it's causing republicans to to put themselves in a situation where they either have to go all the way to where rubio is going or where they're going more in the direction where a guy like rand paul is going is setting up a debate in republican party and some kind of final throw down between between rand paul types and marco rubio types and you know regardless of what kind of republican you are that's definitely not somewhere you want to be certainly not an election year well so what do you mean exactly you say that obama's foreign policy is more

about short term rather than think about long term consequences. well when you look at his tactical approach to fighting wars that aren't wars you know relying on drones or relying on you know diplomacy and pushing a country like iran to what a couple of times has looked like a near breaking point where they're threatening to to close the straits of hormuz where they're getting involved in proxy concepts in the region. a bone is has done an adequate job in the city outside of questions of international law and targeting american citizens just in terms of like checking the boxes and scorekeeping he's in a pretty good job of preventing conflicts from spiraling out of control he dipped his toe into libya and managed to back out of that so that there is some amount of deftness here but what he has been able to do is then carry that through into something that looks like a bigger picture where americans can be confident that in say five or ten years we're not going to be facing some of these same underlying problems in a way that's going to come back and you know bite us in the hindquarters well i

mean i'm no fan particularly of many elements of obama's foreign policy and i think they bring up an interesting point there in the sense that do we know years from now how the rest of the world is going to end up looking at us right based also partly on our foreign policy and how we conduct ourselves. around the world and so intervention has something to do with that and so this is a point that come up people actually ended up obviously noticing aside from myself which is the i thought it was fascinating that marco rubio never even mentioned the war in iraq despite talking about the need for intervention the need for us to be a leader to do whatever we want all over the world because that's going to make the world a better place how do you just ignore something like that i mean are they trying to help people on notice because it was such an epic failure. well a lot of people would like to forget that iraq ever happened look i think there's a lot of reading between the lines that you can do here the fact that they didn't mention it doesn't mean that it was kind of hovering over the speech and you know when he when he talks about leadership and brackets the question of well lead what

right what exactly is it that we're trying to lead here and i think what you end up with this is a tacit recognition that maybe iraq was a bit too big of the footprint when it comes to leadership so when we're talking about something like libya when we're talking about something like syria i think rubio's kind of hearkening back to that mccain lieberman kind of you know bomb. drop a few boots on the ground if you have to but let's make this kind of a episodic kind of intervention is in rather than planting the flags building the giant embassies and going forward in that way now we're all god based on a wide net of ours right now what you know the iraqis are question. but in that has to do you think that sometimes serbia was willing to say what other people aren't for example he brought up syria and this is after he was speaking about iran and basically said that the fall of assad the a significant blow to iran's ambitions and on those grounds alone we should be

seeking to bring assad down i think about something that obviously everybody knows as the thought in the background when you think about the situation in syria this idea. of intervening there but i mean his head does he have more guts or maybe more naive it to you than other people do to just say it out front. oh sure you know i think there's some of that going on but i also think that what rubio gave us at that speech was something that looks remarkably similar to what barack obama's already giving us now rubio himself said you know a joke today in the u.s. senate on foreign policy if you go far enough to the right you want to on the left so bracket on his clouded picture on foreign policy so much for republicans and this is where they used to have some security coming out of reagan at least and i think through through both bushes bush sr and jr. the waters began to muddy the bombing has really blown this up for them it's going to take a lot of work both it basin with their establishment people in foreign policy circles who've been there for decades on the republican side it's going to take a lot of work to find a new consensus and then to be able to advance it as some kind of clear concise

alternative to whatever it is the democrats are deciding to advance over the next four years and it was a picture well his not only blown it out maybe for republicans in the sense that it's made them a little uncomfortable but it's also blotted out for democrats in terms of what is a democratic policy foreign policy supposed to be like right if you want to talk about continuing these wars if you want to talk about drone strikes extrajudicial killings these are things that democrats are supposedly not supposed to be supportive of and they gave a lot of chris that criticism to george w. bush for it so what do you think is left right if we want any kind of different thought because these days we have too much bipartisan consensus when it comes to you and i my opinion these interventionist type of very aggressive counterterrorism policies are we going to have to have the far right and the far left somehow try to come together to get some different thought in their. you know it's possible i wouldn't rule it out it seems a lot landed right now but you're absolutely right and it's bringing up the point

that that that there is this sort of third way that is not being pursued and progressive there have been let down by this president and so i think ironically even though he's really done world of hurt to the republican party on foreign policy i think he's actually done more research philosophical damage to progressive conservatives can still say well hey we're realists but we're also care about values so we'll take this sort of to hell with them hawkish attitude where you know if we have to crack heads every once in a while because we're we're the good guys then we'll do that but we're not going to get drawn into this kind of neo colonial endless occupation style of foreign policy that we've seen in you know in different ways on the right and left of the past eight years this is our kind of left sucking wind here they might be able to happily pull over for the democrat for obama and say well he's coming back into office but i think a lot of their hopes are then forced to ride on domestic policy where you know where obama regardless of what happens to obamacare might find himself increasingly

unable to make real gains well i think when it comes to foreign policy everybody has got a lot of soul searching to do james thanks so much for joining us tonight the time . i coming up after the break kelly tell an update on bradley manning found latest here and then we'll speak about the wal-mart corruption scandal rocks the coffee. led mission free liquid intake should be free. for charges free to make amends three lists three stereotypes three per gallon old free blood video for your media projects a freebie.