he says this they should be in our military assistance to ukraine coming from the united states non state schools to support that a missile defense shield to protect from ukraine others on some of the bed points of view i now again from the white house was still waiting to get that point of view. on the phone call between clinton and obama that happens at the social lot of that. instead of oh my we expect to happen next week on with it. talk about sanctions in the last few days of the likely next step yes that's an idiot is the most likely that next step of the raw still a few more steps to calm the whole united states as i was matching trivia here. for sanctions even the referendum did take place that doesn't mean that sanctions does happen automatically while the united states will now do this is no good if you follow the developments possible cause. how does russia reacts to this that one thing. it is full of the population in crimea to say yes to both want to join russia will happen i'll wait and see how mosque interacts with the rest. basically it takes over crimea pretty much straig

united states. what if i find a non-u.s. person i know is in communication with a u.s. person outside the united states. is that permissible? >> no. >> because? >> you would be targeting -- if your real purpose is targeting that -- >> reverse targeting in your view is the same. the prohibition on reverse targeting co-extensive with the prohibition on targeting? >> again, i think of reverse targeting as a geographic issue. let's say you have a legitimate target overseas, but you want communications of a u.s. person or nonu.s. person inside the united states, but says you can't do that. if you have a u.s. person that you're interested in overseas, you can't use 702 to target them, either. >> if you know that person is in communication with a nonu.s. person, both of whom overseas. could you target the nonu.s. person to get the u.s. person's communications? >> you couldn't do it for that purpose. but if that nonu.s. person overseas is val lied that you're interested in their communications? sure you can target that person. they are incidentally communicating with a u.s. person overseas, that's ok. i would co

state, but for all of the united states of america. >> like martin luther king and mahatma gandhi before him, cesar chavez was a champion of non-violent actions. he participated in picket lines, went on hunger strikes and led an historic march, a 340 mile trek from linda know to sacramento. >> they don't like working for a day's wage but they will walk over 300 miles for free. [ laughter ] even pilgrims ain't allowed in the street without a permit. >> >> we'll use the sidewalk. it's open to the public. >> chavez did not lead alone. his wife helen played a pivotal role in his success not simply by raising his eight children but by standing on the front lines with him and being arrested before him. >> she wasn't afraid of the work. that was woman who did what needed to be done. at the same time, her commitment to the cause was not about supporting cesar's pet project. she, as i said, had been working in the fields herself since she was seven years old. so she was standing up for her dignity, for her mother's dignity, for her sister's dignity. >> reporter: delores huerta remains a champion for laborers and at 84 years old she still heads up a community organization foundation bearing her name. >> this is a woman, delores huerta was loud and proud before feminism was coined? >> we move forward together or not at all. >> reporter: with chavez at the helm, the farm workers movement forced growers to give in, signing a contract that included higher wages, safer work conditions, and medical plans. but what was perhaps most historic about chavez and his struggle was the way in which he enlisted the american public in his cause -- a cause which became their cause. >> we are leaving it up to the country. we're telling them that these problems exist and telling them what we think ought to be done to remedy them and since we don't have any political power, leaving it up to them and their conscience to make the decision. >> reporter: across the country, $14 million americans participated in a national boycott. americans who had never seen a farm or considered the people who worked on one. millions of them heard chavez's call and refused to buy table grapes in solidarity with the workers. but the fight goes on. while farm working remains one of the most dangerous jobs in america, the average worker makes $12,000 to $15,000 a year. less than one in ten receive employer-provided by health care and 53% of farm workers are undocumented. that question, what happens to the undocumented, will determine in large part what ultimately happens to the men and women who harvest america's food. >> today there's no way that conditions are going to be better if an immigration reform doesn't happen and -- but that's not an issue just to farm workers, you know? that's an issue of $11 million workers here. it's not just an issue of them, it's an issue of everyone consuming and receiving the fruits of their labor. >> reporter: cesar chavez empower it had disenfranchised, bringing them out of the shadows and into the national spotlight. and while he undeniably led those workers, he also led the country to care about the lives of people they had never met and never would. >> i didn't say it was going to be easy, but if you take care of your side, i take care of mine, we'll be fine. >> cesar's message was about showing up and showing the people the power they had to save themselves. >> great report there from alex and true story, my mother, a daughter of the statet eat grapes for ten years because she was so inspierd by chavez and the movement he did. that's dedication. "cesar chavez" opens in theaters nationwide today. after the break, the affordable care act hits another big milestone but the latest enrollment count may not be the only number that matters. jonathan capehart joins me next to discuss. don't go anywhere. we'll close it out well here on "now." (knochello? hey, i notice your car is not in the driveway. yeah. it's in the shop. it's going to cost me an arm and a leg. that's hilarious. sorry. you shoulda taken it to midas. get some of that midas touch. they tell you what stuff needs fixing, and what stuff can wait. next time i'm going to midas. high-five! arg! i did not see that coming. trust the midas touch. for brakes, tires, oil, everything. (whistling) [ mala body at rest tends to stay at rest... while a body in motion tends to stay in motion. staying active can actually ease arthritis symptoms. but if you have arthritis, staying

non-aligned rather than join europe. the united states is insisting that only the ukrainian people can decide that. >> and sergei is joining us now. thank you, mr. ambassador. the united states is making it clear that any diplomatic solution must include a pullback of russian troops from crimea. is russia prepared to meet that position? >> first of all, thank you for having me. secondly, what kind of pullback from crimea are you talking about? we are now in the territory of the russian federation. there are a lot of things that have happened. and one has to be very realistic about it. there was an expressed will of people living in crimea to become a part of the russian federation at the moment when there was an unconstitutional takeover of power with the use of force in kiev. and they felt that this is the moment that this is threatening the way -- the life they wanted to conduct. so crimea is part of the russian federation, and -- >> how about eastern ukraine, sir? can you state unequivocally that russian troops will not push into eastern ukraine? >> well, we have said so many times that we have no intent, no interest in crossing the border. >> but does that mean you won't

non-u.s. persons who are reasonably believed to be outside the united states, that we do not intentionally intercept domestic communication and we do not target any person outside the united states as a subterfuge to target someone inside the u.s.. the minimization procedures ensure consistent with foreign intelligence we minimize the acquisition and retention of nonpublic information available about u.s. persons and prohibit dissemination of such information. i want to make a couple of important overview points about section 702. first there is either a misconception or mischaracterization commonly repeated in section 702 as a form of bulk election. it is not bulk election. it is targeted collection based on selectors such as telephone numbers or e-mail addresses where there is reason to believe the selectors relevant to a foreign intelligence purpose. i just want to repeat section 702 is not above collection programs. second from a legal point of view persons who are not u.s. persons who are outside the united states do not have rights under the fourth amendment so the constitution doesn't require individualized warrants to target them. in fact the intelligence covered by sect

we only have non-us citizens believed to be outside the united states, that we do not intentionally intercept domestic communications and we do not target any person outside the united states as subterfuge to target someone inside the u.s. the minimization procedures ensure we minimize the acquisition and retention of nonpublicly information available and that we prohibit the dissemination of such information. i want to make a couple of important overview points. there is either a misconception or a mischaracterization of commonly repeated section seven of bulks a form collection. it is targeted collection based on selectors such as e-mail addresses, where there is reason to believe -- section 702 is not a collective program. -- bulk collection program. from a legal point of view, persons not u.s. persons and are outside of the united states do not have rights under the fourth amendment. the constitution does not require individualized warrants to target him. the type of intelligence covered by section 702, targeting foreigners outside united states, has been viewed as part of the president posses inherent constitutional authority. i am not aware of any other country that

non-u.s. citizens when they are outside the territory of the united states and supreme court confirmed this in 1990 decision of united statesversus credo. so foreign citizens, surveilance of foreign citizens outside the united states is completely unconstrained bit fourth amendment. second, courts have confirmed highly unlikely the fourth amendment's warrant requirement applies to surveillance of u.s. citizens when they're outside the united states especially when the surveillance is conducted for foreign intelligence purposes. no court in the united states has held that a warrant is required for a search of a u.s. citizen when they are overseas if that search was conducted for foreign intelligence purposes. some courts like the second circuit have even held no warrant is ever required for an overseas search while others relied on a broader foreign intelligence exception. so there are further details here about the reasonableness. courts have generally interpreted the fourth amendment reasonableness requirement very generously in favor of the government when conducting overseas searches again in light of this long history a

we only have non-us citizens believed to be outside the united states, that we do not intentionally intercept domestic medications and we do not target any person outside the united states. the minimum -- the minimization procedures ensure we minimize the acquisition and retention of nonpublicly information available and that we prohibit the dissemination of such information. i want to make a couple of important overview points. there is either a misconception or a mischaracterization of sevenly repeated section bulk collection. collection based on collectors and e-mail addresses, where there is reason section 702 is not a collective program. from a legal point of view, persons not u.s. persons and are outside of the united states do not have rights under the fourth amendments of the constitution does not require individualized warrants to target him. the type of intelligence covered by section 70 two, targeting foreigners outside united states, has systematically been viewed as part of the president posses inherent constitutional authority. i am not aware of any other country that brings this kind of collection under this sort of judicial process. third, we can explain

non-personality, his lack of personality. >> in spite of political convictions, oil bound the two countries together. venezuela sits on large reserves, much processed in united states. >> they are producing and selling less to the united states. the whole situation shifted. so that it's almost as if venezuela needs the u.s. markets more than the u.s. markets need the venezuelan oil. >> so far the u.s. line is watch and wait as both countries kick out the diplomats. >> the government ought to focus on addressing legitimate grievances. >> how long the confrontation between calls for reform and brute force lasts, but for now it's plain out on the streets. >> in thailand the protesters scaled back, remaining fine in their efforts to oust the prime minister. hundreds marched in bangkok. yingluck shinawatra called for early elections last month. they were disrupted by mass rallies. several districts are holding a revolt. >> egypt has its sixth government. they swore in a cabinet, but the new line up has ministers were the cold government. he is widely expect, abdul fatah al-sisi, to run for president, and parliamentary elections are planned for the summer. >> a 100 car pile-up in denver kills one woman, leaving hundreds injured. a

united states. what concerns me is that the premise of deterrence of mutually assured destruction, assumes a state actor, a rational actor, and a nonsuicidal after. i'm wondering if we don't need to rethink the whole third of deterrence when we're doing with the potential in what of nuclear capability in the hands of nonstate actors who aren't particularly rational and who are, in fact, demonstrably suicidal. i don't expect you give me a dissertation on this now but i would really appreciate some thoughts about the nuclear deterrent theory in an age of totally changed circumstances. do you have any immediate thoughts? >> senator, i will say, you know, as you look at the cost-benefit kind of relationship, nuclear deterrent, and as you articulated, the business of the intent of the actor, rationality of the actor is important. you look at strategic deterrent in terms of capability a nation will have that can threaten the united states of america -- >> but we might not even talk about the nation. i think that's one of the important point you. we are not necessary, if iran den aaggest you might follow up on this question in terms of ho