tv Hardball With Chris Matthews MSNBC July 2, 2013 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
leaves a legacy to the white house. >> thank you very much, i'm sorry we ran out of time. we used it up earlier on some of the discussions in the program. thank you. >> thank you. was it self-defense? and has the gop kissed off the latino vote? let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. in a minute, are republicans ready to kiss off the latino vote? just tell them to take their vote and shove it, are they? and now it looks like edward snowden is truly a man without a country, even one that will take him. ly but let me start with the biggest trial in the country. this case will come down to whether george zimmerman believe head faced great bodily harm or worse at the hands of trayvon
martin. what did happen in court today to show that was or was not the case? nbc news correspondent craig melvin joins us from sanford, florida. craig, thanks for joining us. this trial just the last couple of days has had a lot of twists and turns. i just wonder about the prosecution. their witnesses are not exactly going in the direction, i think, that they hope they'd would. >> yeah, you know what, chris, that's the point raised a lot today. and a lot over the past two days. specifically, you know, mark osterman was one of the witnesses that the state called today. mark osterman gets on the stand and within the first 90 seconds we learn that he is george zimmerman's best friend. he said at one point that he is the best friend i've ever had. they've known each other about five years. he wrote a book defending george zimmerman. his wife did an interview with dr. phil at one point, and in the interview, dr. phil, in the interview with dr. phil, the wife said that george zimmerman
deserved to get -- or excuse me, trayvon martin deserved to get shot. the day began, chris, with judge nelson ruling on chief investigator chris serino's testimony from yesterday. chris serino at one point yesterday, of course toward the end of the testimony, serino said that he essentially believed george zimmerman. that was the testimony at the end of yesterday. there was of course an objection by the state. judge nelson this morning told the jury that that was something that they should essentially disregard. that he should not have been commenting -- >> what do you think of that as a reporter? how do you disregard something like that? i remember a great movie called "anatomy of a murder" where the defense attorney in this case said don't think of a blue cow, knowing there is nothing else you can think of for the next five minutes except for a blue cow. how do you strike that from your memory if you are a juror sitting there. >> once the toothpaste is out of the tube, right?
that's a very good question. we should note here that the day ended sort of, came down how it did yesterday with folks waiting on another decision by judge nelson. tomorrow at 8:30 the attorneys are going to continue arguing over some evidence that the state would like admitted, chris. specifically some course work on self-defense law. some course work on stand your ground law that george zimmerman may have taken. an application to become a police officer with the prince william county police department not far from where you are, prince william county, virginia. and also this application that george zimmerman submitted to participate in a ride-along with sanford police. basically the state is asserting, part of their assertion all along, is that george zimmerman was a wannabe cop. a wannabe cop. and they also played that interview today, that fox interview where he was asked pointedly, did you know anything about stand your ground when you did this. and george zimmerman said no. so now the state is trying to
introduce evidence that would speak to the contrary. so judge nelson gave the attorneys some time to introduce some case law. we expect that she may rule on that tomorrow. but we just -- we know at this point that attorneys will continue those arguments at 8:30 before the jury is brought back in after. >> that's great reporting. thanks, craig. we'll be back to you again and again. joining me now is veteran prosecutor and former san francisco da paul henderson, there he is, and defense attorney karen de soto, both of you. let's take a look at trial testimony before we get into this general conversation. let's look at the conversation here. let's go to they call him zimmerman's friend, mark osterman to the stand. osterman wrote a book called "defending our friend: the most hated man in america." osterman describes what zimmerman told him what happened at the crime scene. let's listen to his testimony. >> what does mr. zimmerman say happened then?
>> he said that because his jacket rode up a bit, that with the -- perhaps with the inside of his leg, he felt or looked down and saw that he had a holster and a firearm. >> okay. before the defendant said that, did he say that he desperately got both of my hands around the guy's one wrist and took his hand off my mouth long enough for me to shout for help? >> right. that is the main thing he did with his hand was to try to clear his mouth. because with his mouth free, he could scream and he could breath. >> later in a trial today, lead defense attorney mark o'mara asked osterman, that same witness, about george zimmerman's recollection about the series of events. >> did that, however, as he related it to you, seem significant as it was occurring to him? that he couldn't breathe for whatever length of time? >> it was critical. >> and that he had -- somebody had a hand, trayvon martin, on
the nose that suffered the previous injury? >> correct. >> as he related that to you, was that a focus of his? >> that was the focus. when he was losing oxygen, he felt he was not able to breath. that's why he was desperate to either clear an airway. >> and in your experience as law enforcement, would you agree that that is sort of a natural reaction to traumatic events. >> i would think so. every time i've seen it. >> do people involved in traumatic events like that sometimes focus on particular parts of it? >> almost exclusively to the omission of others. >> let me go to karen desoto. seems to me, talking to lisa bloom last week, pretty good defense attorney, what this trial is going to come down to after all the other discussions, relevant or not, as they decide by the jury whether relevant or not, we go to the question of self-defense, whether it's self-defense, and whether the defendant here in this case, george zimmerman believed at the time he made that decision to draw and shoot his gun whether
he was in danger of the gravest >> right. >> now we are getting testimony that doesn't seem to be challenged yet that there was a fight, a physical brawl. he was on a sidewalk. apparently agreed to that at some point. his head was hitting the sidewalk then the question is how many times does your head hit the sidewalk before you wonder if you are getting grievous bodily harm or not. are with we there or is that not stipulated at this point? >> right. >> are we that close to what is a margin call here, what is a judgment call? what? >> there is one point, the self-defense is by preponderance of the evidence. it is not a reasonable doubt standard. it's more probable than not. if you're at 50% and the jury believes at 51% george zimmerman's version of the story, then obviously self-defense is going to win out here. but yeah, how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsy pop. how many bangs on the head does it take until you are brain
damaged? that's something the jury has to determine. but in determining that, you also have to remember that the standard is a lot lower for the self-defense. >> yeah. well, let me go to paul henderson. i want to get the facts straight. i'm not watching the trial every minute. i have another job to do here. it is called politics. this is of course in some general sense political because it's about the ethnic issue. let's face it, race is the part of the way people look at this trial. i wonder whether people are learning anything in this trial who watch incessantly. do you have a sense it is a learning experience or is it two sides looking at each other across the old racial divide saying i see it my way, you see it your way, we ain't changing. >> it is funny you mention that. i get calls almost everyday from people watching this trial that are call meg and asking me questions. i have a little brother that is in law school that calls every time something happens and wants to know why is this happening? but i think the real effect of what is going on in this case is still being seen outside of that courtroom where we just saw just last week the u.s. commission on civil rights is opening up an
investigation to evaluate the stand your ground laws. >> but they are not invoking that here. that's not the defense. it is common law self-defense, i believe, that is at issue here. >> you are absolutely correct. but i think the trial and the discussions that are prompted because of this trial are causing people to look at the stand your ground and evaluate what is the result of stand your ground, and is this trial one of the results from having that law on the books. the approach that government is looking at is whether or not there is racial bias. stand your ground -- >> sure. these are all relevant questions in our society. but i want you first, and then let's go over to karen. i agree they are not stipulated, but if someone is on the ground and they are pounding his head into the cement, he doesn't have a choice to stand his ground or not at that point. certainly before the scuffle or altercation or fistfight began, he had the choice of getting back into that car as fast as he could and maybe getting the hell out of there if this guy is a threat to him. let me go back.
is this going to be stand your ground in reality when it come to the jury decision. is that the issue in that courtroom? >> no. >> i'm sorry. the issue in that courtroom is whether or not he used too much force in retaliating and using self-defense. we are looking and hearing this evidence about what his injuries were, that they were weren't that significant. >> we're hearing that. >> trying to paint a picture that his life was in danger and that's why he pulled -- >> i can tell you, watching this and hearing people say, karen, he has a couple of lacerations on the back of his head. the word laceration just jumps at you. then someone says, they weren't that serious, the lacerations. >> right. >> and then you get back to what i don't said about the 50%, 51% preponderance. you know, when it's your head being smashed -- it's like being on an airplane. >> exactly. you worry about turbulence but when you look up in the sky from the ground, you're not worried about the turbulence. but if it is your head, you have a different view. in a jury's position, it seems
there are so many cultural and value -- i mean, 450 years of racial prejudice and slavery and horrible things and bad police behavior and all that bunched behavior, and are you trying to get a verdict out of that, or trying to get a verdict out of a limited circumstance of two guys duking it out in the dark, trying to figure out what that meant. >> chris, the racial ing angle, as a defense attorney, because the emotions are running so high here, what i would do is argue the facts. at the end of the day, the prosecutor decided to charge second degree murder. okay. the unlawful killing of a human being. >> was that too high? >> perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous and evidencing a depraved mind. that's an extremely high standard. so you don't even have to get to the emotional of it. if you're a defense attorney you just argue the facts. you can argue the standard. i mean, they chose not to go
with manslaughter. they went with the second degree. >> i got it. i'm sorry. i agree with you. i got to give paul one chance here. was manslaughter a smarter to get a conviction or can they go with manslaughter if they decide murder 2 is too high? can they make that choice? >> i don't think so. as i look at this trial and through the lens after prosecutor and i'm hearing the evidence of how he approached trayvon and literally hunted him down with his gun, i think the facts and evidence are really going to support those charges. here is the linchpin for me. i haven't seen this question asked. but i really want to know with that semiautomatic gun, at what point did you take the safety off and prepare to shoot someone? because if you were doing all of that, or did this all happen in the moment while you were being smothered and your head was being bashed with the de minimis injuries. because all of this reflects to me in the grand total of the evidence that i'm hearing that this may not have been an accident. this may not have just been a self-defense situation. this may have been more than that and that zimmerman acted inappropriately and could be found guilty in this case. >> well, you still have to prove it. we have to go. we'll be back. please come back.
i can't just talk about the great attorneys here. thank you. coming up, why the gop decided they don't need latinos at all publicly. an emerging republican view that leaning on the basis is the right policy. pump up the white voter by removing illegal voting. and moving the party even further to right. is this a smart move politically down the road? certainly for presidential politics, you have to wonder. also, edward snowden is living a real life version of the tom hanks movie, remember that? "the terminal." no country seems to want this guy. he is stuck at the moscow airport. a rebel without a country. how is that russian airport food getting to him? and bush and obama get together over in east africa. not just w. and barack, but also laura and michelle. great stuff today from the two first ladies. it turns out mitt romney lost two elections recently, the one for the white house, and now we learned from a distinguished reporter when his family voted unanimously against the
election, the vote was 2-10. he was on the two side for running. he was voting against it too. what is going on here? and this is "hardball," a police for politics. with olay, here's how. new regenerist eye and lash duo. the cream smooths the look of lids... softens the look of lines. the serum instantly thickens the look of lashes. see wow! eyes in just one week with olay. these are sandra's "homemade"
they have no idea what it was like before u-verse high speed internet. yeah, you couldn't just stream movies to a device like that. one time, i had to wait half a day to watch a movie. you watched movies?! i was lucky if i could watch a show. show?! man, i was happy to see a sneezing panda clip! trevor, have you eaten today? you sound a little grumpy. [ laughter ] [ male announcer ] connect all your wi-fi-enabled devices with u-verse high speed internet. rethink possible.
welcome back to "hardball." love them or leave them. it's a rift within the party now that the immigration debate has made deeper, wide. >> and certainly louder. on one side you have republican senators like lindsey graham who warn of things like demographic death spirals. strategist karl rove echoed the same concerns in a recent op-ed called more white votes won't save the gop. that's putting it bluntly. but there is also a growing and highly vocal voice in the party who says forget latinos and focus on the base. in other words, translation, focus on whites there are plenty of missing white votes to drown out the demographics. hard right voters who didn't vote last time who will desert you completely if you get too pro illegal immigration or for legalization of people who came here illegally. this is fox news' brit hume voicing those arguments yesterday. this trope that you're hearing
that the republicans say don't go for immigration reform much as the senate has done. they'll never win another presidential election. oh, baloney. if you look at the statistics, you find there is one significant block of voters who turned out in smaller numbers this time in a major way, way below expectations, below their '08 turnout, and that is white voters. >> what does it mean for the debate itself and whether it will pass because it will take both parties. joining us now are our msnbc analyst, former rnc chair michael steele, and jonathan alter, author of the great new book "the center holds: obama and his enemies" which shows the story how obama won 71% of the latino vote, among other political truths, i must say, many truths in your book which is packed with facts. i love anecdotal facts. i like giant details. >> i tried to explain it wasn't
just an accident he got 71%. they ran a subterranean campaign under the anglo media radar with people like the latina oprah. most anglos have never heard of her. >> you got me. >> cristina saralegui, huge host on univision. she cut ads with michelle obama. chris, here is the main point. if they hadn't run up the score, if they got 60 or 65% of the latino vote they still would have won the election but immigration reform would not be up right now at all. the republicans would not have gotten the message. so it's all about the election. >> good work. great reporting. we have a more recent, the vote in the senate last week. 76% of republicans voted against it. 14 votes out of 45 or 46. here is the question now, what do they do looking forward. if you are interested in presidential politics, you got to consider 80% of the electorate is hispanic and it will grow over our lifetime.
>> they can't wait for this. >> and you can say the district is 95% anglo, a certain term meaning nonhispanic. why should i worry about it? >> and that is becoming the prevailing attitude for a lot of folks who want to block and tackle on this issue is to say look, we're looking at two million plus white who didn't participate in the last election. the assumption is that those whites would have voted for mitt romney or the republican candidate. >> more conservative. >> more conservative. and i don't believe that that's the case. they stayed home for a reason. a lot had to do with the nominee and party as a whole. i don't think it was tied to an issue like immigration. it was much bigger than that, about big government republicanism, et cetera. i think the party is making a big mistake when it sit there's and stares 50,000 hispanics turning 18 years old every month in this country, looking at that number and going, you know what? we still want to play the white card. the fact of the matter is -- >> republicans have two caucuses. >> it's got to be bigger than that. >> they have the sensible caucus who are sensible on the issue and the suicide caucus.
>> let me ask you this. let me ask you this. i think politicians are rational. i don't buy that we are all smarter than them because we don't run for election. i don't buy that. i never did. you're a politician, you're a republican, you have a district 95% anglo. or 90% white, if you will. you go home to them in the meetings you have to go to. the town meetings, and you face the big question, why did you vote for immigration reform. that's a good question. and what is your answer if you're a republican? >> i think the answer is you get the head of the local chamber of commerce with you and you say immigrants provide a lot of the entrepreneurship in this country. what else are we going to do with the 11 million who are here. >> that's not an issue with republicans. they don't care. the big question republicans want to know, mr. or ms. smith, will this stop illegal immigration? yes or no. what will your answer be? >> yes. >> you believe that? >> it is already -- there is already very little if you look
at it -- >> that's the economy. >> it is the economy but i think -- >> i don't think they like illegal immigration. they want to hear a bill that is going to work. >> they won't like it. what they remember is what was promised in 1986 that didn't happen under reagan. >> of course it didn't work. they were promised before. it was like peanuts. >> we want the lock on the fence to be secured before we give you anything else. >> how are we going to keep 30,000 guys on the border down there? how many years are we going to do that? >> as long as republicans have anything to say in washington. >> and how long will the people want them to do it? democrats don't really believe in border enforcement, do they? do they? >> i don't know about other democrats. >> do democrats care about border enforcement? >> i think the leadership understands. >> do they believe in border enforcement? >> a lot less than republicans do. >> why don't they believe it in? why don't they believe in illegal immigration, the democrats? >> right now it's not that big of a problem. >> why do they believe in it? >> i'm not defending it -- >> yes you are. >> you think nancy pelosi and the democratic party is
concerned about illegal immigration? >> mildly. >> you are covering. >> republicans in the house are facing very little pressure from hispanic voters. here's why. studies by the cook political report, which is nonpartisan, and "the new york times" found that, quote, thanks in part to their own quarantining efforts, that's where putting hispanics and african-americans in the same direct, only 24 house republicans are in districts where latinos are more than 25%. and most of the districts are in deeply red parts of the country any way. they share the latino vote between 0 and 10% in 142 republican districts. 0 and 10%. a majority of them. the average gop district is 75% white compare to just 51% white. put simply as the country gets more racially diverse, ethnically diverse, republican districts have gotten proportionately whiter. i'm asking you, why should they vote against their own political interests?
>> because they have to think about their party also. and they don't want -- they shouldn't become a remnant party the way they are in europe. they want to -- >> so sacrifice themselves politically at home. >> basic point that karl rove made, basic point that karl rove made, which was an excellent point is to win with white votes, republican candidate in a presidential election would have to carry the white vote by the same margin as -- listen, just -- can i just finish the point? same margin as ronald reagan won when he carried 49 states. which nominee can get that? none of them. >> let me ask, will the majority of house republicans vote for a pathway to full citizenship? >> no. >> no. but with democratic votes they can get a bill through. >> well, how are they going to get a vote? >> john boehner has to walk his way back from the so-called hastert rule that says you have to have a majority of the rule. >> did you hear from that -- >> yes. >> john alter said you have to
do this. >> otherwise she are slitting their throats long-term. >> that has to play, chris, longer term. >> i don't think it will happen. thank you. thank you, michael steele and jonathan alter. don't forget to check out the "hardball" blog. there is much more on this story including a great piece by "hardball" reporter benjy sarlin talking about how latinos learn to love their own base. find it at tv.msnbc.com and clicking on "hardball." up next, mitt romney didn't just lose the race for the white house among the electorate last november, his own family overwhelmingly voted against his own candidacy, even him, he says. this is "hardball" a place for politics. [ male announcer ] imagine this cute little orange blob is metamucil...
and this park is the inside of your body. you see the special psyllium fiber in metamucil actually gels to trap and remove some waste. and that gelling also helps to lower some cholesterol. it even traps some carbs to help maintain healthy blood sugar levels as part of your diet. now that's one super hard working fiber. metamucil. 3 amazing benefits in 1 super fiber. ♪
reveals an interesting anecdote about the romney family. over the holidays the romneys took an internal family vote on whether mitt should run. according to "the huffington post" which saw an early copy of the book, the result was 10-2 he should not. one of the family members voting against a run was romney himself. romney's cold feet had to do with an assessment of where the republican party at the time. winning as a moderate from massachusetts who happened to be a mormon was going to be difficult. a lot of the thinking on the part of my brothers and dad was i'm not sure i can win a primary given those dynamics. tagg romney said, even up until the day before he made the announcement he was looking for excuses to get out of it. his father. if there had been someone better to have run for president than he, romney, would gladly have stepped aside, according to the author. so what changed romney's mind? that's the question. according to romney, he didn't think he's fellow republican contenders were up for the job. quote i didn't think any of them had a good chance of defeating the president.
and in some cases i thought that they lacked the experience and perspective necessary to do what was essential to keep the country on track. ing of, romney was overestimating his own ability defeating the president. maybe he should have listened to the results of the romney family vote. well, finally, during an appearance on bravo's "watch what happens", live with andy cohen here, cher, cher herself gave msnbc a bit of an endorsement. that came as a surprise to someone else that happened to be on the set. take a look at the fun. >> are you still a big cnn and c-span viewer? >> yes, but i also -- i'm also -- i split my time between msnbc. >> okay. >> oh! >> and he's down. >> that was anderson cooper hitting the deck there, appropriately. anyway, i wonder if they knew what was coming or they wouldn't have asked that question. up next, rebel without a country. edward snowden is stuck in the moscow airport still. and is far, no country says they want the guy. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics.
welcome back to "hardball." nsa leaker edward snowden remains in a state of limbo, if you will, at the moscow airport. he stay there's nine days after arriving from hong kong. his hopes of transiting to another country where he would be granted asylum from the u.s. prosecution seem to be closing by the hour, close down, i should say. according to supporter julian assange and his organization wikileaks, snowden has applied for asylum in 21 countries. how many law schools did this guy apply to get out of there. however his prospects are not looking so good. brazil and india both flat out said no. ecuador, fairly left wing government reportedly he was trying to reach when he fled hong kong seems to be hedging now on its willingness to accept him. venezuela, another country on the left's leader was in russia today and some suggested snowden might fly out of the country with him. but the president of venezuela suggested to reporters that was unlikely to happen. a host of other countries including spain, ireland,
austria, germany, the netherlands, poland and switzerland said snowden would need to reach their soil to file for asylum. there's a catch 22. that seems unlikely. how will he get there? meanwhile russia made it clear there are preconditions for him to stay there in russia. david corn is washington bureau chief of mother jones magazine and jonathan capehart, both msnbc political analyst. jonathan, i want to start with you. it looks like russia is not mother russia when it comes to this guy. they set a condition saying sure you can stay here but you have to stop what you do for a living which is go to war electronically or digitally with the united states. no more leaks from the soil of russia. he has to neuterize himself to agree to stay there. so he has it turn out the lights it survive personally. >> right. when vladimir putin, when russian president putin said that, you know, in order to stay, snowden would have to do this, it was rather surprising.
russia isn't exactly -- and putin, they both aren't exactly the united states' best friend. >> where did that love come from? >> i know. and in most cases, they don't rise to the level of frenemy. so here you have poor -- poor. you have edward snowden who is there, leaving china basically from hong kong, which is china, going to moscow, which was supposed to be a transit point before heading off to venezuela, and, i'm sorry, to havana and then possible venezuela, there he is, stuck in this weird kind of limbo, as you said, for the last nine days. and he is apparently carrying these four lap tops. it just strains credulity to think that the chinese in hong kong and the russians in moscow have not availed themselves of the information on the laptops that he has. >> what do you make of that? >> well -- >> you think they exploited the situation already? >> i would be shocked if any
intelligence service in the world, let alone russians and chinese, would not have tried to do whatever they can to get access to what he has. because we still don't know what he has. we know that "the washington post" and "the guardian" of england have gotten a stash of documents from him. they've done a couple of stories, but not all of the stories they could, and they say there are some secrets they have not revealed, which are the type of secrets -- >> do you believe his earlier claim? i will be neutral on this because i have a mixed feeling about this guy. do you think he had the ability to out agent and station chiefs around the world? he said he could do that. all our top spies in the world, spice, he could out them right away. >> if he could, it would show a breakdown in internal controls. he worked for the nsa. at one point he did work for the cia, couple years back. it's kind of unclear exactly how he got into that job and what he did under that job. but if he, working as a infrastructure analyst in hawaii, and also, it's unclear
exactly what he did. he might have been a much more sophisticated -- >> i thought analyst was a euphemism for a guy who could hack into systems. >> it might be a guy trying it hack into other systems. in that position, if he had access to cia officers around the world, that would be a real breakdown in sort of internal security control. >> by us. >> by us. no doubt russians and chinese and anybody else who comes into contact with him are going to want to see what is on his computers. and i assume in the last nine days, he has gone to bed at some point. >> if mother jones was a country, would you let him in? if it was a country, would you let him in? >> we're not quite at that stage yet. >> that's a trick question. i want to know your mind-set. yesterday wikileaks, who sponsors this guy, released a statement on snowden's behalf. the leaker wrote in part, quote, now it is being reported that after promising not to do so, the president, that's our president, ordered his vice president to pressure the leaders of nations from which i have requested protection to deny my asylum petitions.
this kind of deception from a world leader is not justice, and neither is the extra legal penalty of exile. these are bad tools of political aggression. their purpose is to frighten not me but those who would come after me. i'm not sure that's so true. i think they are trying to get him. but jonathan this whole question, i always ask this about people who do extreme things, like saddam hussein, and assuming he didn't have an option to avoid a war with us. candidate you say assume had some options in his life, ends up either in storm sewers what do you call them, spider holes or some place that didn't seem like a good plan b. this guy seems to have had no plan b. >> exactly. >> what is his plan b? >> damned if i know, chris. look, for him to say -- to accuse the united states of forcing him into exile, remember, he said in the interviews with us and the guardian that after he did this, he left his family. he left his job. he left his life in hawaii three weeks before the stories hit. he did this to himself. this is not the united states
going after him proactively. the united states is going after him because, one, he stole secrets. and two, he stole national security secrets. what did he expect the united states government to do? >> well, that's a question. i think he wanted -- i'm just looking at the hip glasses and the hip designer stubble and all. this guy wanted to be something of a celebrity. he thought that was part of the package. sort of a hero. >> he may think he is a hero or martyr for justifiable cause. >> yeah. >> i spoke to somebody who has been involved in getting these stories out. and this person describes that he was on, saying that snowden believed it was a suicide mission, that at the end of the day there was probably no way he was going to get away with this and in that way have a life free. >> how did he presume this? >> how did who? >> the suicide theory. >> someone involved in getting the stories out. it kind of makes sense. at some point -- >> but it's not a suicide. he is in the -- he is in moscow
national airport. >> well, not suicide losing your life physically, but basically, you lose any prospect of a future life living in a happy, secured way. i think he probably knew at the end of the day, snowden probably knew that he was not going to get away with this in the sense he would end up in jail or under house arrest or maybe at best, at best, look at julian assange, in an embassy in another country. >> i hate to sound like a regular establishment figure, but to some extent i am. jonathan, you know how the establishment works. you work at "the post." why didn't he go to a fairly left wing of congress. get them information and give them 48 hours to do something with it and if he didn't do what he wanted then go his route. he had an intermediate way to get all this accomplished, it seems to me. >> exactly. >> look, a lot of people are comparing edward snowden to daniel elsburg of pentagon papers fame. that's what he did. went to two members of congress in the senate. when they didn't move, he then
gave the papers to us at washington post. he went to "the new york times" and i think 17 or 18 other publications when the act -- when the people who had the power to do something didn't move. and, and also like edward snowden, daniel elsburg went into hiding. but unlike snowden, elsburg went into hiding in the united states, in boston, and gave himself up at the boston courthouse. if edward snowden wants to be considered a hero, as i guess he considers himself, he should have done it here. >> yeah. i shouldn't have said left wing, because i think that's one option. we know in our new 360 degree political universe, the left and the right media, he could have gone to rand paul or one of the libertarians. any way, it is possible. there are other things beside ending up in russia. which sounds like our enemy rather than our friend, or anybody's friend. thank you david corn. jonathan, thank you, jonathan capehart from "the post." up next, i do want to know where mother jones would put him if they were a country. this is really kind of fun.
there is michelle obama and of course laura bush together in east africa. they went a long way to get together. but get together they did. this is the place for politics. but your erectile dysfunction - it could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing,
stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial. >> that's egypt's embattled president, mohamed morsi. there he is. he has taken to state tv to announce he is not step do you think from power, despite millions of egyptians who are on the streets right now calling for his ouster. morsi's defiance is setting up confrontation now between the
while people are sort of sorting through our shoes and our hair, whether we cut it or not, you know -- >> whether we have bangs. >> whether we have bangs. >> who would have thought. >> i just -- i didn't call that one. >> we're back. of course, that was first lady michelle obama and former first lady laura bush joking about the attention given to mrs. obama's bangs earlier this year. mrs. obama joined her predecessor in the capital of tanzania on the last day of the obama family's eight-day tour of africa. she helped mrs. bush kick off the summit hosted by the george w. bush institute meeting over there. the two first ladies combined their star power to improving access to education, health services and economic opportunity for women and children across the continent of
africa. joining me for a couple minutes to talk about it is msnbc political analyst, ron reagan, and joan walsh. joan, i think one of the reasons, i'm going to say this, an effort of george w. bush, michael gerson pushed him to do this, maybe laura did. the united states really helping to wipe out aids in east africa. really working on it. >> hugely important. also this issue these two women have come together on, chris, hugely important. when we invest in women and girls, those countries do better. the women wait longer to have children, to get married. they get education. their children are healthier. their children get education. there's such a multipliers effect. it's so important. to see these women come together around that issue is really heartening. >> it's been my experience in my two years over there, ron, the women do the hardest work over there. the childbearing, child raising, paying tuition bills. making the beer for their husband.
they do all the work. men once a year do the plowing. the women deserve the credit i think. your thoughts. >> yeah, absolutely. this is a short of issue that doesn't get a lot of play in the halls in congress in washington, d.c. as joan was saying, it's an enormously important issue. these sorts of issues globally. if you empower women, the world improves. >> what do you make of the first lady's role? i want to talk about it. joan, it has surprised me that someone as outgoing in personality, when you are lucky enough to meet her, i think i did it once, maybe a couple times every christmas when we line up as reporters to get their pictures taken with the first family, you realize what a charmer besides everything else michelle obama is as first lady and kept herself away from the hot issues. let's face it. >> well, i think her work on childhood obesity and neighborhood food access is really important, chris. i think she chose an issue. she was in a can't-win situation, you know, and she really did decide to become the mom in chief, but these issues could really transform low-income communities.
so i think they're important and i respect the role she played. it's a role she's comfortable in. >> women as first lady don't have to be hard chargers like hillary rodham clinton who led the fight on health care. >> everyone probably learned from the example of hillary clinton. everybody is going to have a different style. >> what do you think, you have a mom who was first lady, ron. you is home reality here. >> some people probably wouldn't like to think so, but michelle obama has been a traditional first lady. she's chosen an issue, childhood obesity, which is right in the comfort zone for first ladies and still, still at that you can remember sarah palin waving her snickerdoodles around and accusing her of being part of the totalitarian nanny state for wanting kids to eat their vegetables for god's sake. you really can't win sometimes. >> i think your mom and her both were very good on highly educated women. your mom picked just say no, the whole drug thing which isn't
going to go away as a problem. you proud of that is? >> a traditional issue. hillary clinton different. eleanor roosevelt, different. even to an extent, roslyn carter at the beginning of her, the carter administration, tried to get in on cabinet meetings, tried to be a little more active in policy. that didn't fly too well, either. >> we're looking at the former first ladies and the one that stands out because she may well be the future is hillary clinton there. joan, last question to you. what would be the role of a first -- what would we call them? first gentleman? >> first gentleman. first spouse. we might have to make a gender neutral for a while now that we're going to have women presidents, chris. you know, i think it would be different if it was bill clinton, i don't think it would be a quiet domestic role for sure. he would be an interesting person to start -- >> i don't think he'll limit himself to one issue. that was a joke. thank you, joan walsh and ron reagan. thanks, buddy.
he was a man of good, solid ambition. a african-american, he refused to consign himself to local politics but set out to win power across the full expanse of capitol hill. he ran for chairman of budget committee, won the position by winning votes of white members of the south. he won those votes by among other things campaigning for those members among the black communities of his district. he went on the road in order to win power back in the congress, itself. he knew how to not forge the bonds and he forged them. he knew where he was needed and he went there because it's the only way to become a leader. i was a friend of bill gray. so was the speaker of the house who i served, tip o'neill. he let people know he was behind bill. the same drive and gumption that won him that chairmanship won bill gray the position of house majority whip. make him the first african-american to gain a position in the congressional leadership of either party. after leaving the u.s. congress, gray went on to head up the united negro college fund-raising billions of dollars for that organization. bill died yesterday in wimbledon
watching the tennis tournament with his son. he's survived by his equally impressive wife, andrea. he showed the one way to rise is to seek to rise and essential to becoming a leader is to ask people to make you theirs. and that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. good evening, from new york. i'm chris hayes. tonight on "all in" a high-stakes international drama playing out tonight as the airplane carrying the president of bolivia has been forced to reroute and land in austria. why? because of reports that nsa leaker edward snowden had been smuggled onboard when the plane left moscow. that story is coming up. also tonight, right now it is is e