IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, Transcript 06/04/15

Guests: David Corn, Eugene Robinson, Mark Edmond, Eugene Robinson, CharlieSavage, David Corn, Mary Gail Frawley-O`Dea

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: Where they should have been filed -- they found the Rembrandt etching and the door engraving, together, row 14B, B3, shelf 2, approximately 80 feet from where they should have been filed. They found them. Which is great and exciting news that the Boston Public Library has found this artwork. Good for the city, good for the people, good for the art, good for the library. The President said today her resignation stands. But she`s happy she was able to clear her name. Today, the library posted this great picture of her, the soon to be ex-president of the Boston Public Library holding one of the now found pieces of artwork that she said would be found. She`s the lady standing on the left with the super big smile. Don`t quit, come back. That does it for us tonight, we`ll see you again tomorrow, now it`s time for THE LAST WORD with Lawrence O`Donnell. LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Senator Lindsey Graham is the new driver of the straight-talk express in the Republican presidential primaries, and Lincoln Chafee is now the one Democrat who plans to run right at Hillary Clinton. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: People are very interested in about what I would do, not just how much I think Obama sucks. RICK PERRY, FORMER TEXAS GOVERNOR: Yes, I am running for the presidency of the United States of America. (CHEERS) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s Rick Perry`s turn to join the GOP presidential field. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Rick Perry all the way -- KASIE HUNT, POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, MSNBC: This is -- want to be remembered for the things that many of us remember him for in 2012. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can`t, the third one, I can`t. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As if to steal some of Perry`s thunder -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He is finally ready. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Jeb Bush appears ready to make his presidential candidacy official. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jeb has really stretched the limits of not a candidate to its sort of rational limit. ALEX WAGNER, MSNBC ANCHOR: Sort of like campaign Jew did sue -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Agency sucks. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Lincoln Chafee -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Grabbing some headlines. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Quickest path to relevancy is going right after Hillary Clinton. LINCOLN CHAFEE, FORMER RHODE ISLAND GOVERNOR: I think the temptation of taking the Clinton Foundation money colored her judgment. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Chafee talking about the metric system. CHAFEE: Lets be bold, let`s join the rest of the world and go metric. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, just the metric system is the tool of the devil. GRAHAM: I`m making the case and I am best qualified to be commander-in- chief, I`m on the side of people who won`t blow us up. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s already released a campaign poster, let`s take a look. (LAUGHTER) (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: There is a new Republican straight talk express, and this time Senator Lindsey Graham is behind the wheel. If you want more military spending and more war, there is no doubt about it, Lindsey Graham is your candidate. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GRAHAM: I`m going to take the fight to ISIS, I`m going to rebuild our military. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: If you disagree with him about that, as one guest did this morning during Lindsey Graham`s appearance on "MORNING JOE", Lindsey Graham will simply tell you not to vote for him. Unlike all the other Republican candidates, Lindsey Graham is eager to take every question and debate every policy point, and he is eager not just to be president of the United States, but to be president of the Middle East as well. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GRAHAM: I will take a regional approach here, I will take more troops into Iraq, around 10,000, to thicken the Iraqi security forces, and have more trainers, advisors, a couple of aviation battalions so we can liberate Ramadi and Mosul. I`d get the Arabs together, Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and say, OK, guys, we`re going into Syria, we`re going to take ISIL down and we`re going to get rid of Assad, you`re going to help us hold the territory. We`re going to give the Syrians some breathing space and we`re going to try to put the country back together again. They are large, they`re rich, they`re entrenched, they`re coming here if we don`t stop them. I would go after them and pull the caliphate up by its roots. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: And Lindsey Graham certainly does not duck or evade when asked about the painful and expensive implications of his plans to tame the Middle East. When asked how long we would have to keep troops in Iraq or Syria, he said -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GRAHAM: You know, I`d stay there for a long time, it depends on how long - - I don`t know when we can leave. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: On the first official day of what will surely be a short campaign for president, former Texas Governor Rick Perry proved that he has hired the most morally bankrupt speech writers working today, and that no one in the Perry campaign has the minimal intelligence necessary to edit those speech writers. So, while reading his teleprompter, candidate Perry actually compared the Obama years to the civil war in which 620,000 Americans were killed on American soil. And he made that comparison in a place that proudly fought on the wrong side in the civil war, a moral mistake Texas has never apologized for, and actually continues to celebrate. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PERRY: We`ve been through a civil war, we`ve been through two world wars, we`ve been through a great depression, we even made it through Jimmy Carter, we will make it through the Obama years. (APPLAUSE) We will do this. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Alex Wagner, Rick Perry and his speech writers still crazy after four years. WAGNER: Rick Perry giving new definition to the term flop-flex in his announcement. I mean, you`re right, morally bankrupt, shameless, lowest common denominator, whatever is out there, Rick Perry is putting into his speech. He also managed to flub the line and said there is no problem in this country that a great leader can`t make happen. (LAUGHTER) I mean, look -- O`DONNELL: He is back -- WAGNER: Yes -- O`DONNELL: In full force -- WAGNER: And Lawrence, we love it, right? Like, please stay in the race as long as humanly possible, Rick Perry, because every night, there will be another choice Rick Perry nugget. I mean, I think this is more about Rick Perry`s ego than it actually is an exercise in trying to get the nomination. And he wants to show America that he`s maybe not as stupid as he was in 2012. O`DONNELL: And -- DAVID CORN, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, MOTHER JONES: Yes -- O`DONNELL: Eugene Robinson, Rick Perry comparing the Obama years to the civil war really ugly, and while he`s at it, two world wars, you know, I don`t know, I don`t know why he left out the holocaust, he just maybe doesn`t -- EUGENE ROBINSON, COLUMNIST, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well -- O`DONNELL: Does -- still doesn`t know about that. ROBINSON: I think that`s an included offense in the -- O`DONNELL: Yes -- ROBINSON: In World War II, so if you can -- O`DONNELL: OK -- ROBINSON: Include that. You know, that`s -- this is Republican rhetoric these days. And so this time it`s coming from Rick Perry, but if we`re going to go through every example of inappropriate and shameful Republican rhetoric, we`re going to be here all night. I mean, this is the way they talk these days. You know, as if the Obama years are some great national disaster and that plays with the Republican primary electorate. O`DONNELL: Well, let`s listen to the way they talk now about Iraq. And we`re going to hear from Lindsey Graham and Rick Perry on this, the new Republican talking point. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GRAHAM: By 2011, the violence in Iraq was down, everybody was talking about it, including the Obama administration, Iraq had never been in a better place, and they were right. In 2011, Iraq was on course to be a secure, prosperous nation, political progress was afoot. PERRY: In January of 2009, when Barack Obama became commander-in-chief, Iraq had been largely pacified, America had won the war, but our president failed to secure the peace. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: David Corn, Republicans looking back to the period when we had a 100,000 troops in Iraq and saying, those were the glory days. CORN: Well, you know, this is very similar to the trope that came out during the Vietnam years that politicians back home stare our soldiers who won the war in the back and lost the peace. You know, ISIS started in, you know, 2004 to 2006 range, and was growing through all that period without Bush-Cheney administration doing much about it, without even recognizing the problem. And so for Rick Perry to say that Iraq was largely pacified at the start of Barack Obama`s administration shows that he or more importantly the people who write his speeches, do not know what they`re talking about. It`s just certainly not true. And Lindsey Graham, I mean, you know, I have a little more empathy for him because he`s out there saying, I am a warmonger. O`DONNELL: Yes -- WAGNER: Yes -- (CROSSTALK) O`DONNELL: He`s being very straightforward -- CORN: If you don`t like war -- he said -- he said, if you don`t like war, don`t -- ROBINSON: Yes -- CORN: Vote for me, don`t vote for me. ROBINSON: Yes -- CORN: OK, so that`s honest, now, but can 10,000 new troops really go in there and solve the problem in Iraq and in Syria when we don`t have an Iraqi partner to work with? And if we take down Assad as he wants to do in Syria -- ROBINSON: Yes -- CORN: How do you think that`s going to help ISIS? -- WAGNER: Yes, I do, I -- ROBINSON: Well, you know -- but he`s pretty honest, he`s pretty honest in saying, ten thousand is just the ante -- CORN: Exactly -- ROBINSON: For, you know, for Lindsey Graham. I mean, he is -- you know, he`s going to -- going to occupy Syria, apparently. CORN: Yes -- WAGNER: But -- ROBINSON: Yes, as well as Iraq, and God bless him for being honest -- CORN: Yes -- ROBINSON: God bless him for at least answering -- WAGNER: Graham has a plan -- ROBINSON: The question, what different would you do? CORN: Yes -- O`DONNELL: Well -- WAGNER: Lindsey Graham has a plan, and Lindsey Graham is going to speak completely transparently about keeping American lives in Iraq, American boots on the ground. About spending money, about raising the defense budget and cutting discretionary spending, and that is a major problem for the Republican Party. Because he`s going to be the only one in the debate stage that is like OK, you want to deal with ISIS? Here is how I`m going to deal with ISIS. And everybody else has been talking in vagaries -- O`DONNELL: Yes -- WAGNER: And using the opportunity to slam this administration. And they have not spoken with any specificity or with any courage about what they would actually do. O`DONNELL: So, he is going to make -- CORN: So this is Sheldon Adelson`s revenge, Alex. O`DONNELL: Right, so -- CORN: That`s what you`re saying is -- O`DONNELL: So wait -- so Alex, you`re saying that Lindsey Graham then will in effect make all the other Republicans on the stage seem weak in comparison to him -- WAGNER: Absolutely -- O`DONNELL: In the face of ISIS? WAGNER: And in the Republican Party -- O`DONNELL: Within -- WAGNER: Right -- O`DONNELL: The Republican -- WAGNER: Like that is a -- O`DONNELL: Party -- CORN: Well, yes -- WAGNER: Major problem. O`DONNELL: Yes, go ahead -- CORN: You`re assuming -- WAGNER: What are you -- (CROSSTALK) CORN: You`re assuming Lindsey Graham makes it to the stage -- ROBINSON: Right -- CORN: Though -- ROBINSON: Which is not -- WAGNER: Well, that -- ROBINSON: Clear -- CORN: Well, no, which is -- WAGNER: That is always the -- O`DONNELL: Why? WAGNER: Question. O`DONNELL: Well, he`s going -- (CROSSTALK) He is going to make it -- (CROSSTALK) If he wants to, he can come on this program. Go ahead -- CORN: OK -- O`DONNELL: Eugene -- CORN: Open invitation -- O`DONNELL: Go ahead, Gene. ROBINSON: No, I was -- I was going to make the same point that David was making because very -- you know, if the debates were held tomorrow, he`d be at the -- at the children`s table I think -- (LAUGHTER) O`DONNELL: Right -- ROBINSON: Of the -- of the bottom ten. CORN: Chicken nuggets for you. ROBINSON: Well, exactly -- (LAUGHTER) Exactly, those chicken nuggets. But you know, it does implicate or it certainly challenges the other Republican candidates because all they have said is Obama is doing it wrong, Obama did everything wrong, Obama is responsible for all of this. When in fact they will not say what they would do differently -- CORN: And the -- ROBINSON: Right -- CORN: Interesting -- ROBINSON: And so if you think -- CORN: Well -- ROBINSON: It`s definitely -- CORN: And they all do -- WAGNER: And they also -- CORN: They all do -- WAGNER: Just said we need to let Arab -- the Arab countries lead. What does that -- CORN: Yes -- WAGNER: Practically mean? Lindsey Graham is out there saying you know what? The Iraqi forces are not ready to leave. O`DONNELL: Well -- WAGNER: The neighboring countries have not come together -- O`DONNELL: He`s -- WAGNER: The way we need -- O`DONNELL: He is certainly -- CORN: Oh, good -- O`DONNELL: Implying that President Graham will lead those Arab countries. WAGNER: Yes -- O`DONNELL: Lindsey -- (CROSSTALK) WAGNER: President Graham is going to be the president -- O`DONNELL: Yes -- WAGNER: Of Iraq. CORN: All right, yes -- O`DONNELL: Lindsey of Arabia -- ROBINSON: Yes -- O`DONNELL: That`s what -- WAGNER: Yes -- O`DONNELL: It`s going to be. (LAUGHTER) And Gene, is -- are we really looking at a candidacy for vice president here? Is he really running for Dick Cheney`s job? ROBINSON: I think -- I think maybe he is. I mean, that`s if you want to - - want to, you know, logical reason for why he`s doing this. He`s running for vice president, and -- but maybe he thinks he can slip in. I don`t know, you never underestimate, you know, the power of politicians - - WAGNER: Well, he`s also -- ROBINSON: To delude themselves -- CORN: Here is the interesting -- WAGNER: He is running as a goal post -- (CROSSTALK) CORN: See about this -- O`DONNELL: Yes -- WAGNER: He is running as a goal post to make sure that Rand Paul does not get to be too -- O`DONNELL: Yes -- WAGNER: Isolationist in his rhetoric, and he is going to establish a benchmark for -- ROBINSON: Wow -- WAGNER: Intervention and for hawkish. O`DONNELL: So, mission -- CORN: Well, but then -- O`DONNELL: One is -- CORN: On top of that dock -- O`DONNELL: To Rand Paul and then whatever happens after that -- WAGNER: Whatever happens -- CORN: I think -- I think -- I think mission one is get on "MORNING JOE", so mission accomplished. O`DONNELL: Yes -- CORN: But maybe mission two is stop Rand Paul. But you know, there are a couple of major league billionaires out there, I mentioned Sheldon Adelson, and -- but there are others, Ron Perlman is now on his national finance director panel who want a very muscular policy. They`re very concerned with protecting Israel, and he is going to make the other guys out there in the Republican Party who want those guy`s dollars look a little bit on the weak side. So, it`s going to cause some trouble, I think, for the other Republican candidates who go searching for those hawkish billionaire bucks. O`DONNELL: But doesn`t he then, according to your point, Alex, that he`s going to be the most extreme in terms of fighting the Islamic State? As a vice presidential choice -- WAGNER: Yes -- O`DONNELL: He`ll in effect shore up any one of those other people -- WAGNER: Is it -- I mean -- (CROSSTALK) O`DONNELL: On that side of their -- (CROSSTALK) Politics? WAGNER: I mean, there is -- CORN: Yes -- (CROSSTALK) O`DONNELL: Unless he goes too far -- WAGNER: Because that would presumably be a national race, right? If -- O`DONNELL: Yes -- WAGNER: If they`ve announced their vice presidential ticket mate, can you actually have Lindsey Graham on a ticket? Lindsey Graham who`s explicitly said, ten thousand troops in Iraq, several thousand more in Syria for an unspecified amount of time. I am not sure that you can actually keep him that close to you. O`DONNELL: Yes, Gene, normally, you`d like to -- ROBINSON: Well -- O`DONNELL: See a little more overlap on the talking points with -- between -- ROBINSON: Well, you -- (CROSSTALK) O`DONNELL: Between you and the guy below you -- WAGNER: Yes -- O`DONNELL: On the ticket. ROBINSON: You would -- CORN: Yes -- ROBINSON: But remember, you know Joe Biden`s views on Iraq were not -- O`DONNELL: Yes -- ROBINSON: Not exactly -- O`DONNELL: That`s right -- ROBINSON: The same as Barack Obama`s, and that seemed to work out. O`DONNELL: Yes -- ROBINSON: So, you know, they can harmonize. O`DONNELL: All right, we`re going to take a break right here, we`re going to be back, coming up, Lincoln Chafee takes no time to go after his -- the leader in his party, Hillary Clinton. And professions and politics -- are truck drivers mostly Democrats or Republicans? There`s actually an app now that answers that question. And later, the Duggar family has more to say about the revelation of molestation within their family. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) O`DONNELL: An experimental drug being referred to as female Viagra has won the backing of government health experts, and is one step closer to coming to market. An advisory committee to the Food and Drug Administration voted 18 to 6 to recommend the approval of Sprout Pharmaceuticals daily pill Flibanserin. Remember that name. On the condition that its manufacturer develops a plan to limit safety risks which can include fatigue, low blood pressure and fainting. Unlike Viagra, this pill actually works on the brain to increase the desire to have sex. Coming up, Hillary Clinton has a new Democratic candidate to face in the presidential campaign. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) O`DONNELL: There is a new Democrat in the race for the 2016 presidential nomination, unlike Bernie Sanders, Lincoln Chafee is running straight at Hillary Clinton. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHAFEE: Any time your ethics are questioned, that`s relevant to a campaign. And it`s relevant because how will you perform if we vote for you? And so it`s very relevant. What are your ethical standards? And as we look at her past performance which everybody should be judged by, it just doesn`t meet the test of scrutiny. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How would you characterize her ethical standards? CHAFEE: I think just too opportunistic. I think the temptation of taking the Clinton Foundation money colored her judgment when it came to rendering decisions as Secretary of State, and that`s the evidence that`s coming out. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you seen anything that you think might be illegal or violate internal government rules? CHAFEE: Well, the e-mails violate internal government rules without a doubt. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If she were the Democratic nominee, would you vote for her in the general election? CHAFEE: I`ll cross that bridge if we get to it. I`m just not convinced she`s going to be the Democratic nominee. I think that the Democrats have to use this Republican war against the Republicans in 2016. It`s their war, they started it. We can`t have our candidate, the Democratic nominee for president having voted for the war, we just can`t have that. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Alex Wagner, wow -- WAGNER: Yes -- O`DONNELL: We`ve got -- we`ve got somebody who on that debate stage really wants to shake things up. WAGNER: Ghost of Christmas past -- O`DONNELL: Yes -- WAGNER: Haunting the whole primary process. I mean, the thing about Linc Chafee is, as a candidate himself, I don`t really think that there is much hope nationally. But as a constant reminder of the missteps, the transgressions in his kind of aw-shucksy-such a vote-shay way, it could be an issue for Hillary Clinton. He is much less apologetic than Martin O`Malley is. He is just kind of out there to be there. O`DONNELL: And Gene Robinson, he -- again, he`s -- here is a candidate with no reluctance to answer any of these questions, no -- the other Democrats you ask them something like that, and -- ROBINSON: Yes -- O`DONNELL: Say it`s not about Hillary Clinton, it`s about -- and they go into their policy talking-points. ROBINSON: Right, yes, well, I mean, let`s be clear though. As of now, as things look now, he is also with no chance of getting the nomination, right? So, I mean, he doesn`t really have a lot of support. Can -- the question is, can he hurt Hillary Clinton with this? And one way of looking at it is that Republicans are going to be bashing her every day anyhow. So that`s going to be in the atmosphere. I actually think if you -- if you really want to try to get the nomination, you have a better chance doing what Sanders and O`Malley are doing, which is taking the sort of populist route of attacking her from the left rather than hopping on the Iraq war vote and on her ethics. And I`m not sure that`s going to hurt her with Democrats frankly. O`DONNELL: But David Corn, given Gene`s first sentence, which is, this is a hopeless candidacy, what does a hopeless candidacy need to do? It needs attention. I mean, this is one way. He`s -- and we`re not talking about Martin O`Malley right now tonight, I mean, he -- CORN: Yes -- O`DONNELL: Just did something in that interview that made news. CORN: I suppose, I don`t see this is -- (CROSSTALK) WAGNER: Wow, you`re just haters. (LAUGHTER) CORN: Listen, all right, let me straighten -- WAGNER: You`re just hating on -- CORN: I was -- WAGNER: Lincoln -- CORN: I was -- WAGNER: Chafee. (CROSSTALK) CORN: I love -- ROBINSON: OK -- CORN: The Chafee family, I love the state they came -- they come from, Rhode Island, which I spent many years in, I have a strong affection for him. I think we should convert to the metric system as he advocates. (LAUGHTER) WAGNER: Most importantly -- CORN: So, you know, and I`m also for Esperanto, but at the same time, I don`t think he`s going to be that much of a threat to Hillary Clinton. Everything that he said today has been said ten times over worse -- WAGNER: Right, yes -- CORN: And they already -- and they already -- WAGNER: But David -- CORN: And the Clintons already have answers to that. If he so -- (CROSSTALK) WAGNER: But we`re not through with the Iraq question yet. If -- we`re still litigating that with the Republicans and Jeb Bush and George W. Bush, why is that -- CORN: Maybe -- WAGNER: An issue for Republicans and not for Democrats? CORN: They don`t -- WAGNER: I just don`t think that there is never been a full accounting -- ROBINSON: Oh -- WAGNER: For the mistakes that were made. And -- (CROSSTALK) And there`s a real desire -- CORN: You know, but she is -- WAGNER: To take -- to take -- to hold people to account, and -- CORN: But she -- ROBINSON: She said it was a mistake -- CORN: She -- ROBINSON: Herself -- CORN: She has said it was a mistake, I don`t like what she did, and I think -- WAGNER: She had said that in -- (CROSSTALK) One question and answer session. CORN: And I think it was an opportunistic answer, but nevertheless, I think it`s going to, you know, it`s going to play as well politically as anything like that can play. And she also did that, you know, went through this in 2008. So, I think Lincoln Chafee as the reminder there has been one, you know, sitting on everyone`s shoulder and saying Iraq vote, Iraq vote, Iraq vote is not going to change the overall dynamics of this. You know, I`d like to, you know, see good policy-driven debates in the Democratic side, and I think you will get that too from Bernie Sanders and Martin O`Malley who will be trying to find policy differences with Hillary in order to push that populist theme that Gene says that they want to pursue. O`DONNELL: But enthusiasm, Alex, is a -- is a huge part of Democratic voter turnout. WAGNER: Yes -- O`DONNELL: And we saw that with Barack Obama, the candidate in 2008. WAGNER: Yes -- O`DONNELL: And the enthusiasm was driven from -- had a variety -- a few engines, he had -- it`s like he had four big outboard engines on the back of that -- WAGNER: Yes -- O`DONNELL: Campaign, and one of them was he was right about Iraq. That was a very important part -- CORN: Yes -- O`DONNELL: Of the enthusiasm, and when you listen to what Lincoln Chafee is saying, if Democratic voters start to think about -- well, OK -- WAGNER: Yes, I think -- O`DONNELL: She got Iraq wrong, and if they hear that stuff about, you know, the ethics coming from a Democrat and the way he analyzes that, those things, they -- that has a way of muting -- WAGNER: Yes -- O`DONNELL: An enthusiasm. WAGNER: Absolutely. I mean, I think you are seeing -- I think the Clinton campaign is like sort of baking that dampening into the cake, if that makes them sort of culinary sense -- CORN: Oh, boy -- (LAUGHTER) WAGNER: Because listen to what Hillary Clinton -- O`DONNELL: That`s a red cake -- WAGNER: But looking -- (CROSSTALK) Look at what -- ROBINSON: Red cake -- (CROSSTALK) WAGNER: Look at what Hillary Clinton has rolled out her campaign with. Talking -- O`DONNELL: Yes -- WAGNER: About reforming the criminal justice system, talking about reforming our broken immigration system, and today talking about voter registration and voter rights. I mean -- CORN: Right -- WAGNER: Those are issues that are not playing to the Clinton white working class base. Those are issues that are playing to the Obama base of young voters of color. I mean, those are really important on top of my issues for them -- ROBINSON: Good -- WAGNER: That means -- CORN: Right -- WAGNER: A strategic decision, Clinton knows she has ground to make up for that -- CORN: She saw -- she saw one of the last two national campaigns that won - - WAGNER: Yes -- CORN: She saw where they`re coming from, the people who run those campaigns are largely running her campaign now. They`re probably more Obama people in top positions, if not the same amount as our Clinton folks. And I think, she -- you know, I give her credit, I think she`s learned from past mistakes, both, you know, in terms of organization, and the way she`s talking about issues. And that`s why I think it`s going to be harder for Lincoln Chafee from the side of the stage to get much -- put much drag on that. I think a lot of liberals in the Democratic Party are going to be perfectly fine with Hillary despite the Iraq vote, which, you know, was a big cause of concern years ago. O`DONNELL: So Gene Robinson, it`s sounding like for Hillary Clinton`s campaign, strategically the best response to everything Lincoln Chafee is saying -- (PHONE RINGING) From the Iraq vote to -- you can take the call David, it`s no problem. CORN: Yes -- WAGNER: Maybe Lincoln Chafee calling -- (CROSSTALK) O`DONNELL: It`s Lincoln Chafee -- CORN: Yes -- O`DONNELL: Calling, we`ll just keep -- we`ll just keep the conversation -- WAGNER: TV zone -- ROBINSON: Lincoln, I just noticed that. O`DONNELL: But it seems like the best response is simply policy positions. It`s just -- CORN: Yes -- O`DONNELL: Banging out those policy -- ROBINSON: Yes -- O`DONNELL: Positions that -- ROBINSON: Yes -- O`DONNELL: Will appeal to that largest voting constituency -- CORN: Yes -- O`DONNELL: That she can assemble. ROBINSON: Banging out her policy positions, trying to -- trying to hold as much of the Obama coalition as she possibly can. And when she inevitably gets asked the Iraq question, say hey, you know, I said it was a mistake. O`DONNELL: Yes -- ROBINSON: I made a mistake, I was -- O`DONNELL: Yes -- ROBINSON: Wrong. And now here is what we need to do looking ahead. CORN: And I`m not Lindsey Graham. ROBINSON: Right, exactly -- WAGNER: Well, and also my positions are different than those of my husband on some of those key issues. I mean, there -- ROBINSON: Yes -- WAGNER: A lot of forward movement. O`DONNELL: But -- and also Alex, it remains to be seen how Lincoln Chafee plays on this national stage and whether he -- whether he comes across as a crank or whether he starts to come across as someone -- as a serious person. WAGNER: Well, I think, you know, what`s interesting about -- I`ll put Martin O`Malley in his own bucket, but Sanders and Chafee are very kind of grass -- they are not polished sort -- they`re opposite of Hillary Clinton. There`s not a media machine around them. They are very plain-spoken, you don`t get a sense that there is high gloss HD around either candidate. And I think that`s actually a very potent weapon because Hillary is so stage-managed, because there is such an operation behind her. And in some ways, like lo-fi(ph) can have as much residents as HD. O`DONNELL: And Gene, the scariest thing to be in a debate stage with is, are candidates who have nothing to lose -- WAGNER: Right. O`DONNELL: And -- ROBINSON: Yes -- O`DONNELL: Hillary -- ROBINSON: Yes -- O`DONNELL: Clinton -- WAGNER: It`s like being on a panel with David Corn -- O`DONNELL: With -- (LAUGHTER) There you go, there you go -- ROBINSON: Yes -- O`DONNELL: Nothing -- (CROSSTALK) The -- ROBINSON: Yes -- O`DONNELL: Phone can ring -- WAGNER: Just taking phone calls -- CORN: Yes -- O`DONNELL: And she certainly has that in Lincoln Chafee and Bernie Sanders. ROBINSON: Yes, she does, and look, she`s got to worry more about Bernie Sanders frankly because -- O`DONNELL: Yes -- ROBINSON: He not only has nothing to lose, he has a constituency. CORN: Yes -- ROBINSON: He has a lot of -- there are a lot of people, you know, who listen to Bernie Sanders, who really believe that he represents their views. And it`s not -- you know, it`s not necessarily any sort of moral threat to her candidacy or her getting the nomination, but she`s going to have to listen and respond to Bernie in a way that frankly, I don`t think she`s necessarily going to have to respond to Lincoln Chafee. CORN: And -- O`DONNELL: And -- CORN: Remember too, organization counts a lot, particularly in caucus states, and while Bernie`s never on nationally -- we all call him Bernie, it`s not a sign of disrespect. You know, if you follow his path in Vermont, he went from being this very radical, unemployed guy to learning how to do local politics step by step by step. He has a real consulting firm behind him, and I don`t know if Lincoln Chafee yet has that organizational fire power that will threaten votes in key states. WAGNER: The U.S. Metric Association. O`DONNELL: All right, we`re going to -- CORN: Real fast -- O`DONNELL: We`re going to -- ROBINSON: Yes -- (CROSSTALK) O`DONNELL: We have to leave it there for now so David can make that phone call. (LAUGHTER) O`DONNELL: Coming up -- CORN: Break it -- O`DONNELL: The "New York Times" reveals a new NSA surveillance program. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) O`DONNELL: Alex, who do you think is more likely to be a Democrat, flight attendants or airline pilots. WAGNER: A Democrat? O`DONNELL: A Democrat. WAGNER: Flight attendants. O`DONNELL: You are so right. Take a look at this graphic -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- representation of this. Flight attendants, a lot more -- they`re the blue part of that circle -- a lot more likely to be Democrats. Airline pilots, majority, Republicans, overwhelmingly Republican, actually. We`re joined now by Mark Edmond. He is the founder of Verdant Labs that has -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- created an app to tell us, by occupation, who is more likely to be a Democrat, who`s more likely to be a Republican. And, Mark, I want to take a look at taxi driver versus truck driver. Let`s put that one up there, that graphic up there. And you`ll see, taxi drivers, overwhelmingly -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- overwhelmingly Democratic, and truck drivers very, you know, strongly Republican. What do you -- what do we think explains that, Mark. MARK EDMOND, FOUNDER, VERDANT LABS: Well, I`m not sure what would explain that specific distinction. But I do see in this data that`s from the Federal Election Commission -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- that there is -- a large proportion of the taxi drivers are Democratic or, at least, campaign contributors who are taxi drivers have overwhelmingly been Democratic. Whereas, truck drivers, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- only about a third are Democratic. And, you know, there could be a number of theories on which way -- WAGNER: I have theories. O`DONNELL: Go ahead, Alex, go ahead. WAGNER: I`m going to guess taxi drivers tend to be probably more minorities, more urban areas. O`DONNELL: More urban, sure, yes. WAGNER: Majority, definitely, more Democratic -- truck drivers, long haul, middle of the country, red states. O`DONNELL: All right. I`ve got to -- I`ve got to -- : Exactly. And those truck drivers, they`re driving, you know, late at night, on those interstates. They`ve got nothing on the radio but right- wing talk radio. O`DONNELL: Yes,there you go. They`ve got three hours of rush every day. All right, now, look at this thing for physicians. This is really fascinating. We`re going to put up, let`s see -- one, two, three -- six different categories of physicians. Psychiatrists, they are the most Democratic. Pediatrician, you know, almost as much as psychiatrists. And then, you go across the board here -- oncologists, surgeons -- plastic surgeons and surgeons, definitely heavily Republican. Urologist is the most -- (LAUGHTER) -- Gene, I know you can explain this to me. Why are -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- urologists the most politically conservative of our physicians. ROBINSON: I couldn`t begin -- (LAUGHTER) WAGNER: I know. ROBINSON: -- to tell you why. O`DONNELL: Alex knows. Alex knows. Go ahead, Alex. ROBINSON: I just don`t know. I mean, it`s -- O`DONNELL: We should have buzzers for this. WAGNER: Specialty fields, richer clientele. I`m thinking this divides less on geography and more on money that`s made. These are probably -- O`DONNELL: Yes. WAGNER: -- fiscal conservatives. Surgeons are wealthier, psychologists, psychiatrists -- O`DONNELL: Oh, you think it`s income-based. WAGNER: Yes, I think that`s what`s dividing them -- ROBINSON: They`re not -- WAGNER: -- as opposed to truck drivers and taxi drivers. ROBINSON: Well, I think that`s right, except there`s not a lot of poor psychiatrists out there. WAGNER: Well, they tend to be in more urban areas where people have more - - (LAUGHTER) -- more problems and want to go to the shrink. I don`t know, that`s -- I just think that they`re probably more coastal if you`re looking at the concentration of psychiatrists in the country. EDMOND: That`s aligned with -- ROBINSON: OK, we`ll buy that. We`ll buy that. EDMOND: That`s aligned with what I`ve seen online and the reactions to this chart. I`ve seen people definitely speculated that, you know, you have the pediatric surgeon at one end and then you have the, you know, plastic surgeon at the other end. People say that the plastic surgeon tends to have a high income, and that it`s -- there seems to be a correlation between the income and which way you lean. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WAGNER: I think I should get a job at Verdant Labs. O`DONNELL: Oh, OK. So, now, -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- here`s one, by the way, that might not be related to income. Episcopal priest and Catholic priest. Let`s take a look at this. The Episcopal priest, much more -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- likely to be Democrat. The Catholic priest is like three-quarters -- ROBINSON: Yes. O`DONNELL: -- Republican. And that seems to, obviously, be connected to abortion. ROBINSON: Abortion, right. WAGNER: Yes, those are the tenets of the faith, right. O`DONNELL: You`ve got that one figured out? WAGNER: Episcopal is a little more -- O`DONNELL: All right, now, let`s do a guess on this one. ROBINSON: OK. O`DONNELL: Bartender versus beer wholesaler. I personally do not know a bartender or a beer wholesaler. WAGNER: I know all of -- I know all of them in the country. O`DONNELL: Alex, we`re going to you on this. (LAUGHTER) There, they`ve put it up already, so you don`t have to guess. WAGNER: Bartenders, later nights, urban areas, mixing around with people. They`re going to be more progressive or Democratic in their outlook. Beer distributor, again, you`ll have a small business owner, -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- maybe in the red part of the country, not necessarily in urban areas. They`re, I think, more aligned with the truck drivers. That`s going to be your Republican breakdown. O`DONNELL: OK -- ROBINSON: But I have -- O`DONNELL: Go ahead, Gene. ROBINSON: I have one more, Lawrence. O`DONNELL: Yes. ROBINSON: I went down the whole list. I don`t know if you have the graphic on this one -- O`DONNELL: OK. ROBINSON: but carpenters, plumbers. O`DONNELL: Yes. ROBINSON: That one, carpenters, Democratic. Plumber, Republican. Why, why is that. O`DONNELL: I can`t -- I stared at that one all day. I could not figure that one out. Here`s one I want to show. It`s a single one, just union organizer. Let`s just put that up there -- union organizer. And what I love about -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- union organizer is -- (LAUGHTER) -- it`s not a hundred percent Democrat, OK. (LAUGHTER) There`s this one tiny slice. And my theory for that is that is a police union organizer. WAGNER: Yes. (LAUGHTER) O`DONNELL: Those are the guys. WAGNER: That`s it. You cracked the nut obviously. O`DONNELL: That`s it, that`s it. Mark Edmond, thank you very much for providing this for us. We`ve had a lot of fun with tonight. Thank you. EDMOND: Sure. Thank you. O`DONNELL: Coming up, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- how the NSA is fighting international computer hackers. (END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) "The New York Times" reported today that the NSA has expanded its activities to general cyber security defense against malicious computer hacking according to classified NSA documents provided by Edward Snowden. "The New York Times" reports that, in mid-2012, Justice Department lawyers wrote two secret memos permitting the spy agency to begin hunting on Internet cables without a warrant and on American soil, for data linked to computer intrusions originating abroad, including traffic that flows to suspicious Internet addresses or contains Malware. A spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence told the "Times," it should come as no surprise that the U.S. government gathers intelligence on foreign powers that attempt to penetrate U.S. network and steal the private information of U.S. citizens and companies. Charting overseas individuals, engaging in hostile cyber activities on behalf of foreign power is lawful foreign intelligence purpose. Joining us now is Charlie Savage of "The New York Times," who reported on this story today. Charlie, tell us what is new in this story. CHARLIE SAVAGE, WASHINGTON CORREPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Certainly. And let me say upfront that it was "The New York Times" and "ProPublica" in partnership. I want to make sure they get equal credit for this. What is new is that, as your viewers may remember, NSA has a warrantless surveillance program that was legalized by Congress in a 2008 law called the Fisa Amendment Act. And it permits the government to collect communications with one end of the U.S. soil and the other end abroad, as long as it`s targeting someone overseas. And most of the debate and discussion about this surveillance program has focused on filtering that traffic as it crosses the border for e-mail addresses and phone numbers of foreign targets. It turns out that, in 2012, that program was secretly expanded, as you described, for use in targeting overseas hacking, that is intruding into American computers and stealing the data out of those computers. And so, instead of searching for e-mail addresses of specific individuals, they`re looking for things like strings of code and Internet Protocol Addresses, and so fort, associated with foreign governments specifically, like China or Russia or whoever might be trying to steal data either from corporate servers or from government computers. O`DONNELL: David Corn, for years, I`ve had NSA officials tell me that they are regularly trying to defend against all sorts of foreign hacking, including constant attempts to break into our financial system, our big banks, and the disruption that could cause also defending against possible intrusions into the energy grid and so fort. I`m not sure -- are you hearing anything here that you think the NSA shouldn`t be doing. DAVID CORN, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF FOR "MOTHER JONES": Well, the interesting thing here, Lawrence, you know that, historically, there`s been a division between what`s called intelligence activities and law enforcement activities. And so, the CIA or the NSA and others want to spy on somebody on overseas intelligence possible threat. The barriers have always been lowered to do that if you`re going on a law enforcement thing that may end up with a criminal prosecution, particularly against an American. But in this instance, as Charlie`s story shows, and congratulations to him and to my pals at "ProPublica, it`s often very hard, at least at the beginning, if you see an intrusion coming from some place overseas, to know it`s coming from a government, Chinese, or from a criminal gang, say, Russian mafia that wants to penetrate something for -- in order to profit from financially. And, it seems -- so, I don`t think we have had a full public conversation about the changing world of cyber security, and what that means in terms of the laws and rules that we`ve had over the past couple of decades on how to handle this stuff. And so, what they`re doing may be fine in a way, but it certainly was done secretly, and we`ve never had a debate and Congress didn`t know about it. And so, a lot of the stuff has to be brought out more into the open so at least it`s being done in a legitimate fashion. O`DONNELL: Charlie -- SAVAGE: I want to jump in here. O`DONNELL: Go ahead, Charlie. SAVAGE: Well, I was going to say, that`s right. I mean, there`s multiple ways of analyzing this. One is, is this something the NSA should be doing. There was just a big breach announced today of government computers with four million current and former government employees, private data stolen, apparently by China, they`re saying. That shows how that sort of cyber-hacking is really getting out of control. And5, every day, we hear more and more of this and, perhaps, this is a good thing. Nevertheless, there`s some really interesting issues that need to be weighed about what the rules should be. And is there an excuse really for the government to decide it can do this behind closed doors rather than having -- saying in the public, "This is what we`re going to be doing on public networks and here`s what the rules are," and, "Let`s have them subject to public debate and setting." So, for example, even if you think this is a good thing and a necessary thing, what happens when the government targets a foreign hacker is that it sucks in its own copy of everything that hacker is stealing. In this case, for example, perhaps, you know, the private data of 4 million current and former government employees. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) And so, what are the rule for that data that now exists not just in the foreign hackers` hands but also in the government hands. Can FBI agents search it when they`re looking for unrelated criminal investigations. And should it be off-limits or fair game. These are the sorts of things that, possibly, should be subject to public debate in the democracy. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: And, David, as Charlie`s article shows, Charlie got this internal memo, a guideline about how to handle exactly what he just described. And that guideline reads pretty sensibly, although, it`s not something that hasn`t been discussed publicly. It basically says, "No, you can`t use that stuff. You should completely seal that off -- CORN: You`re right. O`DONNELL: -- and not look at it." SAVAGE: That`s a little bit inaccurate though, if I can jump in. O`DONNELL: Go ahead, Charlie, go ahead. SAVAGE: It`s a lawyer that says, "Boy, you`re getting a lot of U.S. personal information when you target this hacker. This is the NSA." "Maybe you should segregate it so that people who are looking at unrelated things can`t see it." But we`re looking to see whether that advice was followed or whether any rule like that was created and could not find any evidence of that at the NSA or at the FBI. They have rules -- O`DONNELL: And that`s -- SAVAGE: -- for what they can do, but they don`t have special rules for hacker victim data. CORN: And that`s the big question here. I mean, I think, you know, having the NSA being charged of all cyber security threats, whether they`re coming from a spying source or a criminal gang overseas, you know, makes sense in a way. But the example that you just raised, Lawrence, and that Charlie responded is something that`s really key. And so, this is where you need a very activist congress. You know, you need sort of a privacy advocate within the intelligence world to be raising these issues so that we do know that there are rules and how things are being handled. O`DONNELL: David Corn gets the last word. SAVAGE: Well, -- O`DONNELL: Go ahead, Charlie, quickly before we go. SAVAGE: No, I was just going to say, you know, we just had a big NSA Reform bill this week and there`s another deadline for the very law that this program operates under in 2017. I expect that members of Congress will be looking at these issues. O`DONNELL: Charlie Savage -- CORN: Hope so. O`DONNELL: -- and David Corn, thank you both for joining me tonight. Coming up, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) Coming up, the Duggar Family has more to say about the revelation of molestation within the family. (END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) And, now, for the "Good News." Good police news caught on video, this time, in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. Last Saturday morning, -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- Corporal Adam Willis responded to a car burning in a restaurant parking lot. He ran up to the car and was using a fire extinguisher to douse the flames, when he noticed a man passed out in the driver`s seat. Corporal Willis immediately pulled the man from the burning car and took him to a safe place, away from that vehicle. CORPORAL ADAM WILLIS, MOUTH PLEASANT, NORTH CAROLINA POLICE DEPARTMENT: One thing I was thinking in my mind was, "Please don`t be dead." I reached in there, grabbed a hold of his arm, pretty quickly, he came to and I was able to pull him out, and we were able to run from the vehicle. It`s an honor that I was a part of, you know, helping him have a second chance in life. You know, I`m glad that he`s OK. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Up next, what the Duggar Family is most upset about in the revelation of molestation within their family. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) Coming up, a clinical psychologist analyzes what the Duggar Family is saying about the revelation of molestation within their family. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MICHELLE DUGGAR, REALITY TV PERSONALITY: Story after story, tabloid after tabloid, as a mom, that breaks my heart for my girls. Because, I think, this is such a horrible -- they`ve been victimized more by what has happened in these last couple weeks than they were 12 years ago because they, honestly, they didn`t even understand or know that anything had happened until after the fact when they were told about it. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: That was Michelle Duggar last night, discussing recent revelations that her son molested some of her daughters. Here`s what two of those girls said about the release of police reports under the Freedom of Information Act that revealed what happened to them. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JILL DILLARD, REALITY TV PERSONALITY: They don`t have a right to do this. This isn`t -- we`re victims. They can`t do this to us. MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: And yet they did. DILLARD: They did. JESSICA SEEWARD, REALITY TV PERSONALITY: You know, the system that was set up to protect kids, both those who make stupid mistakes or have problems like this in their life, and the ones that are affected by those choices, it`s just -- it`s greatly failed. (END VIDEO CLIP) O`DONNELL: Joining us now, Mary Gail Frawley-O`Dea, a clinical psychologist who has worked with sexual abuse survivors for 30 years. What is your reaction to what we just heard the daughters say. MARY GAIL FRAWLEY-O`DEA, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, my reaction is, sort of, what I thought last night was that they have been raised in a closed system and they haven`t -- they`re saying, I think, what they expect their parents -- what their parents expect them to say. And they`re meeting the family expectations. And I`m not sure that they`ve had the space in that family to criticize or to really process the feelings that they had about what their brother did. I mean, I notice -- I noticed last night when Tim Bob was asked by Megyn Kelly what was it like for him as a father of the littlest child to know that that had happened to her. And he just brushed the question off and went right to, "Well, but we`re so hopeful -- we were so hopeful because Josh came forward and confessed to us." So, to me, it said that the attention or the emphasis was on Josh`s best interests and not on the child. O`DONNELL: This is a difficult dilemma within a family, obviously. You have a son come forward and confess these things to parents, and then the parents have the question of what do they do to protect their daughters, and then what was their responsibility that remains to their son. How do you think they handled it. What would you have done. What would you have suggested to them if they brought this problem to you. FRAWLEY-O`DEA: Well, those are two different questions. I think that what I would do is colored by the years of experience. But I think what the average family would do if they -- if somebody came forward and they knew this was going on in the family, they`d probably start with their pediatrician. If they just didn`t know what to do next, they would start with their pediatrician who -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- would be a mandated reporter. And the pediatrician would report it to authorities, and then the Department of Social Services that is called different things in different states, and the law enforcement would take over. So, I think that that`s what most people would probably do. O`DONNELL: But is a clinical psychologist a mandated reporter. (END VIDEO CLIP) Are you a mandated reporter. FRAWLEY-O`DEA: Oh, absolutely, absolutely. O`DONNELL: Oh, OK. FRAWLEY-O`DEA: Yes. So, if they came to me -- O`DONNELL: So, going to you is the same, in effect, ultimately, as going to the police. FRAWLEY-O`DEA: Correct. And even -- and in North Carolina -- actually, anybody -- any adults over the age of 18 is a mandated reporter. Well, a lot of people don`t know that. But if they came to me even as a friend, I would have to report it. O`DONNELL: So, that creates a real difficulty, it seems, for -- (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) -- people who aren`t sure whether they want -- they want help but they`re not sure they want this reported. They`re not sure it rises to the level that should be reported and disrupt their lives. FRAWLEY-O`DEA: It`s true. And I do have empathy for any family that finds themselves in that situation because, of course, as someone said, you love both your kids. But, I think, you have to protect the children that are most vulnerable. And, as I said, I think -- (END VIDEO CLIP) -- most parents would probably start with their pediatrician, maybe not realize that it was going to be reported, but it would be. O`DONNELL: What is your experience with the system`s ability to help someone like this 14, 15-year-old boy who`s doing these things. FRAWLEY-O`DEA: Well, you know, last night, they cited research that said that 95 percent of young boys who are treated never do it again. And one of the problems we have with offenders is that we have a really small slice of the universe of offenders to get to know because they`re either in the prison system or they`re in the mental health system, unavailable to research. But my understanding, and I`m not an expert in predators, but my understanding is that, in fact, juvenile offenders are more likely to re- offend later in life. So, I think it`s -- you know, I think the real answer is we honestly don`t know because we work with -- we have access to such a small universe of offenders. O`DONNELL: Dr. Mary Gail Frawley-O`Dea, thank you very much for joining us tonight. FRAWLEY-O`DEA: You`re welcome. O`DONNELL: Chris Hayes is up next. END