>> "inside washington" is brought to you in part by the american federation of government employees, proud to make america work. for more information about afge and membership, visit afge.org. >> what do you think of when you see a tree? but treatment for cancer? alternative fuel for our cars? do you think of hope for the environment, or food, clothing, shelter? we do. weyerhaeuser, growing ideas. >> effective immediately, the

department of homeland security is taking steps to lift the shadow of a deportation from these young people. >> this week on "inside washington," the president fires up the immigration debate. >> he failed to act until facing a tough reelection and trying to secure your phone. >> a house committee holds attorney general eric holder in contempt as the white house claims executive privilege. >> why would the president claimed executive privilege unless there was something very important that he felt should not be made known to this committee? >> the white house, congress, and the rest of us anxiously await the supreme court's ruling on the health-care law. roger clemens catches a break in court. what was the point of this? >> i put a lot of hard work and to that career. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--

>> last week as we were putting this program together, the president appeared in the rose garden to announce that, effective immediately, hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants who arrived in the united states as children would no longer face the threat of deportation. under certain conditions, a young people under the age of 31 who came to the united states before they were 16 and have been here at least five years can work here illegally, but this is only a temporary reprieve. >> this is not amnesty, this is not immunity, this is not a path to citizenship. it is not a permanent fix. >> but last year, didn't the president policy could not do what he has just done? >> with respect to the notion that i could suspend deportations 3 executive order, that is just not the case. >> mitt romney has been dancing

around the issue for zero weeks. on thursday, he said this to a conference of latino elected officials. >> as president, i will not settle for stopgap measures. i will work with republicans and democrats to build a long-term solution. we may not always agree, but when i make a promise to you, i will keep that. >> romney says he will streamline the immigration process and find a way for legal status and citizenship for undocumented immigrants who served in the military. as for college students, who knows? during the primaries, romney said he would veto the dream act as president prefers, the president's unilateral action. first he said he would not do it, then he did it. your reaction, charles? >> the politics are brilliant. the policy, there are merits on both sides of the argument. constitutionally, it is and outrage.

the president has essentially unilaterally rewrote a major act of congress. the analogy would be that if a republican tried to get out of the capital gains tax, did not succeed, and then ordered the irs not to collect capital gains taxes and not to penalize anybody who did not pay it. that would be a scandal and an outrage. >> colby, unconstitutional? >> can't say that. clearly, this is subject to challenge by the congress. governor romney said that he had three years to do something and he did not do anything. romney is wrong. congress and the president have been trying to enact the dream act for at least two years. several times it passed the house of residents only to get filibustered in the senate by the republicans. there is no reason for romney to take the position that this is

election-year politics. that is not the case. now, to be challenged, you can do with to the court, or congress can override the executive order. but i cannot say at it is on constitutional. justice krauthammer might, but i can't. >> nina? >> i think i.t. is probably legal, and unchallengeable by congress. i doubt -- and challengeable by congress. i doubt they are going to do that. the dream act used to be enormously popular. this year republicans dropped off of it like mad. it puts it romney and the republicans in a corner, and four days they cannot come up with an answer and romney still has not said whether he would repeal this. >> lois romano, welcome. >> thank you.

this is totally box in the republicans, and how can a they challenge it with a huge block of voters? obama might have had the latino vote any way, but now they are. these vested. -- very busy aspic. -- very enthusiastic. >> is the latino vote a lost cause for romney? >> well, he did not have much to say in the speech to elected officials. there is a case to be made, that if we could secure the border and build a fence and get an authoritative letter from the governors of the four southern states that the flood is now a trickle -- you will not abolish it entirely, illegal immigration -- at that point, i would amnesty everybody pr. if you know that these 11 million are the last cohort of illegal aliens, we will not cost them out, but if you close the border first, american people

left and right would accept a solution like that. but many conservatives are not willing to accept that position. >> let it be said that the obama administration has deported more illegal aliens in three years than the bush administration did in eight. that is one of the reasons there was less enthusiasm in the hispanic community in particular. this will help overcome that, but there's still deep suspicion in that community because of the very significant deportation efforts by the obama administration. >> politically, what to the numbers look like, lois? >> obama is about 67% in the latino community. i think it is too late. romney cannot get that back, given what happened during the primaries, where he said he would do everything but put rottweilers at the border. >> if you look at a game plan of the obama campaign, everything is sliced and diced. where are they with

independents? >> they are splitting independents. what michelle obama is doing is going out and splitting the base. they i tackling interest groups as they go. >> i think that politically, this is a nonstarter for the republicans. romney is in a worse position, because he is still beholden to the right wing of his party and they have him locked in. he cannot move very far without them screaming, as charles suggested -- he did not suggest it with a scream -- >> i scream quietly. >> silent scream. >> silent scream with tears cascading down the cheeks. this is illustrative of where he will be throughout the campaign, not only on this is, but other issues -- >> no, i am not sure. this is a case where the

republicans had been working on something. marco rubio was working on a compromise a lot like this, which, had it been enacted in congress, would have been something that had been done the right way. the brilliance of this move by obama politically was to preempt that and take the issue for himself. rubio would've had a solution that would have been consensual. >> friday morning, you pick up the paper, and 15 big banks downgraded by moody's. i thought the banks were in good shape. >> the banks are reflecting the economy's where they are located. the biggest problem they face is the political stalemate. the capacity of the country to step up and address the underlying problems -- the deficits, debt problems, the lack of productive sector -- the banks reflect that. they are overexposed in spain,

and they did the same mistakes that were made in, and they are not stepping apart. they are so tied into the economies of the state's that they are almost too big to fail, the same problem we have here. >> moody's downgraded jpmorgan chase and all these others because it said they were engaging in risky derivatives- type trading, the kind of thing that led to the crash in 2008 and because the nine, and they had not -- in 2008 and 2009, and they and not learned their lesson. we hadl the 1990's, banks separate from investors. that was the glass-steagall act. president clinton decided to get rid of that, and we have paid the price ever since. >> what happened to the

conservative banker in the three piece suit? he wants to know how much money you make or he would not give you the loan. >> he died in debut in 1952. -- in dubuque in 1952. >> they had been taken over by large banks and multi regional banks, and you don't have that kind of bank anymore. banks are acting as investing institutions. >> more bad news for obama. the romney campaign will find a way to talk about it in terms of this stuff is still going on even though we build these banks out. i would guess that another story would get more traction -- >> "washington post." >> did an investigation finding that bain capital help companies

that did outsourcing, and that will cause romney a huge headache. >> the guy that answers the founding in india could be -- >> -- that answers the phone in india could be -- >> on the banks, and it is not even our great problem anymore. long-term bonds for spain is 7%. at 6 you are already over the edge. 6 said it into bankruptcy. in the end, who will have to bail them out? the germans. the germans have the sense that we retire at 67, the greek here dresser retires at 50, and you want a steelworker in berlin to subsidize the greek hairdresser? >> they don't have a central bank, either. they need something like the

fed. >> for the germans, the central bank is just the way of saying the germans will sustain the rest of the problem, and the germans don't want to do it. >> what do you say to the german steel worker? >> there is something very serious happening in europe will go beyond the financial crisis. this is a worrisome thing. dark, dark clouds are hanging over their banks. -- over there. you don't want to have this situation much longer. >> a house committee hold attorney general eric holder in contempt of congress. >> our purpose has never been to hold the attorney general in contempt. our purpose has always been to get the information that we need to complete the work that it is not only entitled to, but obligated to do. >> the committee on oversight and government reform is supposed to root out problems

and find ways to reform how government works. it should not be a political witch hunt. >> that is congressman darrell issa, committee chairman, and member carolyn maloney of new york, democrat. for those of you wondering what this business with eric holder is all about, it starts with fast and furious, a sting operation where atf put weapons into the hands of suspected gun smugglers so that those weapons could be traced to mexican drug cartels. well, atf lost track of the firearms, many of which had been traced to crimes, including possibly the murder of a border patrol agent. republicans on the committee it say that the attorney general has been withholding documents central to the investigation, and this week, the white house invoke executive privilege. why hasn't older given the committee everything and ask for? >> he has given over 7000

documents. now the executive privilege issue is one that we've seen, over and over again with the administration's and congress, republicans and democrats. it is legitimate to invoke executive privilege if the documents to what the prosecution is trying to do in a criminal case. i don't know what they are trying to get access to paid i tend to come down on more disclosure and less secrecy. >> if you invoke executive privilege, it sticks to the president, doesn't it? >> i think the committee might have overreached. i don't think the public has the stomach for this right now. it plays to the image of congress being disruptive, and congress has not made the case of what is in the documents that they aftermath. -- they have to have. >> that is the problem. there is no cover-up as far as we now. we know that there is rank

incompetence, but not a cover- up. the incompetence is already clear could they, looking for is evidence that they were tried to portray this in a better light. ok, so what? holder said it "i will compromise with you." issa wants the issue, he doesn't want the documents. it is it clear to me and probably clear to everybody else, and i am not sure -- >> they are looking for documents that happen after the thing blew open. they are looking for conversations -- >> e-mails -- >> and there is stuff in there about ongoing investigations. you cannot turn that over. and what happens next is that it has to be referred to the justice department, so it will go nowhere. >> who benefits at least from this, charles? >> i have to respond to this

idea that they are fishing for documents. interesting that this show and mainstream media past to explain evident from day one, because it has been not been talked about even though it is been a year and half. several we of last year, the department, answering an inquiry by got -- february of last year, the department, answering an inquiry by congress, issued a false statements. they had to retract that. what they are trying to get by the documents about how that was made and who made it. second, the attorney general testified in may 2011 that he had only heard about the entire fifth, the entire operation, a few weeks ago. he later had to admit because documents were discovered from a year earlier that he knew about and was informed about it. two major statements holder had

made, at the doj had made, that were untrue. those are the documents that are being requested -- what happened, how were the false statements made, who made them, how work they they are covered up retract? -- and retracted? >> would be one thing if the committee uncovered something he said was untrue, but he and covered himself -- >> he uncovered it himself? he had been given multiple memos about it -- >> this is no gotcha thing. they exposed it. they realized what was there and exposed it. you are trying to make a double in a situation and there are no devils here. >> with everything going on, with the economy in the tank,

with all these issues, i don't think the american public cares about this, i think they will take it out on the perpetrators, the republicans. >> whether or not it has an effect on the election, there is a dead border agent who died as a result of this operation, and their parents want to know what happened and they deserve answers. >> but that has nothing to do with what the contempt citation is all about. this happened under the atf, the justice department was not running this operation, and we know what happened to him. >> which way will the supreme court go on the health-care law? >> because of that reform, the people we love will no longer have to skip important health screenings because they cannot afford them. >> the supreme court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of the patient protection and affordable care act next week. nina, when will we get a decision? >> i think next week, because

several justices have reservations to leave town on friday. having said that, i remember that i once asked the late, great justice lewis powell if i could visit my parents on july 4 weekend, and he said certainty, and then about this time at the end of the term, the phone on my desk rings and he says, "nina, i'm afraid i misled you." you never know. >> which way are they going to go? >> i don't like to predict stuff like that. has somebody who does not know anything predict. >> and she points to me. thank you, nina. >> there is an interesting study out this week. 74% of the american people say that the issue will be important to their vote this fall, and they are uncomfortable with it no matter which way the court goes.

>> the republicans were the ones who pointed out the draconian measures that were there and it scared the dickens out of a lot of people who are against it. on the other hand, when you turn around and discuss specific aspects of this act -- protecting people from being rejected because of pre-existing conditions -- there is support for eight and a lot of provisions of this act. i think the narrative has affected this bill, and if the act gets turned down, there will be blowback when people realize what they have lost. >> that is like what the former speaker said, pelosi, that people will begin to like it when they learned what is in eight. unfortunately for your argument, the longer it has been out there, the greater the opposition to obamacare. >> what is the obama

administration do? >> i think they can go back to the drawing board quickly, but i think republicans are ready for this and they are not going to gloat. we will do some good provisions and try to get this going, because as everyone here is saying, there are provisions there that people like. >> interesting story in "and the new york times" about where the money went. where does that money go? >> that is very unclear right now. >> the whole thing is unclear, and a lot of political experts think that if the court strikes down the act, it is good for obama because the motivating force we have been talking about is gone. but then people will be very angry when there isn't a fix. the question is whether congress can deal with this. they have not been proven to be able to do with anything. >> 8 million young people who

are covered now because of their parents' insurance would loose and that if this were knocked down. >> and pre-existing conditions -- you take that away from people and they will go crazy. >> yeah, but giveth is not free, although it sounds as if its --it is. said that the cost was $1.76 trillion, the argument of democrats that this would save money was exposed as an entire fraud. >> i have never taken steroids. thank you all very much. >> roger clemens beat the rap on all six counts of lying to congress. want to clemons, john edwards, ted stevens -- roger clemens,

john edwards, ted stevens, millions of dollars, hundreds of hours, what was the point? >> these were brought in cases. they should not have been brought. the higher ups in the justice department should have to answer for that. you have to have control of your lower-down prosecutors, some of whom have political ambitions, some of whom have no judgment. they cannot do -- they did not do that. roger clemens did not beat with the rapid he came as close to being exaggerated -- exonerated. there was no there there. >> congress said to do something. the justice department carefully pointed out -- >> they did not have to say yes. >> if they said no, they would have been vilified.

>> all three of these cases went to trial with flawed primary witnesses could do not make a flawed witness your chief person. they were all very bad cases. >> especially when andy pettitte said that clemens told him he use ahdh and then said maybe he did it. it was over at that point toward michel, -- george mitchell, who did the report that busted open the case, says he did, and anybody who watches again things that he did, but these were cases that should never have happened. these were congressional hearings that should never have happened. the original sin was that that was not the realm of congress. baseball is baseball, not a criminal activity. >> the government has a flawed

witness and uses its leverage to get that guy and go and talk to mitchell. mitchell tells mcnamee we are not going to name names.ek mcnamee, god knows how much of it he made up to it and then mitchell doesn't name names. this reflects badly on mitchell, the justice department, and the congress of the united states. >> see you next week. >> "inside washington" is brought to you in part by the american federation of government employees, proud to make america work. for more information about afge and membership, visit afge.org.