tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC January 6, 2015 1:00am-2:01am PST
gas prices and gas prices continue to drop that very day. thank you you will. >> good evening, chris. welcome back. great to see you. and thanks to you, at home, as well, for joining us this hour. welcome back from the hole daybreak. it's great to be back. here is just the thing to welcome you back in to the new cycle. irt's it's terrible sat e nazi art. this is not vintage, it's now. some of the stuff is for sale online by an artist who appears to have a whole series on this sort of thing. this appears to have a southwestern theme plus swasticas, forward and backward. this one is called sun under the south. first glance, if you squint, it looks like a bad gee mettic flag
painting until you realize it's a bad geometric flag painting with lots of different swasticas. and then the little back wards swastica and then, hey, look, cute little swasticas made with leaves. nature swasticas. this one is supposed to be an african swastica. that's nice. these terrible, terrible paintings, including this superer, extra-racist one are available online. they've been created by either the same guy or somebody using the same pseudonym as the person who brought us news steve skalise scandal. >> when the number three republican in the house had spoken in 2002 to david duke, a main source for that story was the message that's called storm front. apparently, the same guy who is
now posting his terrible nazi drunken crayon scribblings is the same guy who wrote at storm front in 2002 about steve skalise. about seeing this up and coming rep speak at david duke's neonazi meeting. to this day, nobody has seen any photographs of steve skalise speaking to that white supremist group. but storm front, as an online sort of, you know, hate exchange, it still exists. and the storm front archives are searchable all the way back to when it was e it was founded. that contemporary yous reporting speaking to that white supremist group, that reporting on storm front, somebody saying that they've seen him there, that's the seminal evidence that steve skalise, in fact, spoke to that
david duke-associated group. since that stoir broke last week, national media out lets, including the new york timings, have also been able to track down confirmation that he was there from people who remember going to that event. and who remember steve skalise speaking there. one former representative from this white supremist group said that skalise's speech to the group said that america was founded on christian principles and america would go forward as a christian nation. at a time in new orleanss, she's now also said that she remembers meeting with congressman steve skalise about 20 years ago, around this time, right? and that he called himself -- he says i met him 20 years ago. that dove tails neatly with an article from roll call, so 1999.
it was a 1999 article about whether or not david duke might make another run for congress. and if he did, whether or not louisiana voters might actually elect him as part of their reporting on that story. roll call, in 1999, talked about the other republicans who were thinking of rubbing. at that time, steve skalis was one of those republicans. he basically told roll call he was a david duke republican. >> kind of hard to look at the legacy of david duke and say the
worst and most important thing about him is his electability. it's not the first thing i think of when i think about david duke, let alone the most important thing. so that was what steve skalise thought about him saying tho voters should pick him. while he agreed with david duke on the issues, he, steve skalise, could get elected. the new congress, set to be sworn in tomorrow, republican leadership, apparently, has made the decision that these revelations about steve skalis are not enough to keep steve skalis from ascending to the very top tier of republican leadership in washington. steve skalise is due to be the number three in the house now. he'll be the house majority whip.
>> so far, republican leadership seems to be standing by skalise. does the president feel that's appropriate? >> he believes it's their decision to make. but there is no -- there's no arguing that who republicans decide to el vat into a leadership position says a lot about what the conference's priorities and values are. i mean, ultimately, mr. skalise reportedly described himself as david duke without the bag angerer. so it will be up to republicans to decide what that says about their conference. >> white house trying to put the republicans on the spot for this decision they've made to keep steve skalise in the leadership. it's mornt to note at that moment that josh looks down as david duke without the baggage. he had that quote ready to go.
democrats tend to keep republicans on the spot about this. but, you know, whether or not this is an interesting fight aside, if you put it in actual context in terms of who the players are and what's happening over time here, it is really hard to see how republicans are going to standby their decision to keep this guy. how they're going to let steve skalise be there in this visible role every day, the number three guy in congress, the whip, who has a very public role, he's going to be there indefinitely? think about the whole reason steve skalise is extending into the leadership. republicans right-hand turn just taking over the house now? john boehner is speaker. he's staying as speaker. kevin mccarthy is staying in leadership now. the only reason a job has opened up at the top in the leadership for steve skalise to ascend to
is because a guy named eric canter was just thrown out of congress. eric kanter, the highest ranking jewish republican ever in congress. at the time he had to leave congress, he was the only jewish republican in either the house or the senate. he was thrown out of congress by his own party. and the only jewish republican in either house of congress will now be replaced in his leadership position by david duke without the baggage. if you want david duke's oen take and i'll add mit, i'm sure sure you do, but he calls this the steve skalise lynching. a textbook example of how these zio-media lies. in case you're not up on your white supremist lingo would be a catch-all phrase for anything
jewish. here's david duke on the jewish takeover of america. the jewish hate campaign and the war gengs christmas. christmas symbols banned while giant my minoras on public land. zio-treason against america. vicious attack on family values. >> also, he has something against carbs. jewish, online extremists, a review of doctor duke's jewish supremism book. low-carb diet, his best weight loss program. guess how many sugar in two
slices of whole wheat bread. so everyone isn't about how to improve your diet for a healthier, neo-nazi you is about the jews taking over the world. david duke's latest beef, if you want to stay current, is apashtly with nicki minaj is a beef with the jews. why do people blame blacks like nicki minaj. she is promoted by the jewish record producers. it was the jewish record producers that promoeted this degenerate, sick and horrible music. you can still by e buy stuff from david duke on his web site. you can also buy books like this one, the international jew: the world's foremost problem.
congressional republicans are promoting the congressman with david duke ties to replace the one jewish republican member of congress who, again, was thrown out of congress by the republican party because he lost a primary among republican voters in his own district. the steve skalise defense here is ignorance. a series of statements, he said he had no idea of the the racist and antisell mettic relations of this white supremist group he was speaking to, he said basically the david duke connection just didn't pop for him. he didn't have enough staff, he didn't have the google, efble though google had been around for four years at that point. when all of this happens eed, it should be noted, it was not like david duke was hiding his white white light under a bush el. in 1989, he won a seat in the u.s. house of representatives. he served there from 1989 to
1993. he got 41% of the vote in the u.s. senate race. in 1991, he ran for governor of louisiana and won. david duke doing so well, didn't just get a ton of louisiana attention, it got all sorts of national republican figures involved in louisiana politics. who had nothing to do with the state. got involved by endorsing david duke's opponents so david duke wouldn't be seen as the face of the republican party in louisiana. david duke was a very big deal at this time. he was a very famous guy and a very big deal in republican politics in that state and, indeed, around the country because of it. david duke was a clan leader who had just won office and was trying to win even bigger offices and he was doing very, very well in his efforts. he was not a secret. in 1998, he ran for congress. david bitter very narrowly beat
david duke to come in second in that primary. that got him into the run aif. that's how david vitter got to congress. the serving governor of louisiana mike foster was revealed by grand jury to buy david duke's racist mailing list of louisiana mote e voters for his lae la gubernatorial run. thavgs a big scandal in 1989. that was the same year as he was describing himself to roll call as somebody who agreed with david duke on all the issues, but who could do a bet erp job getting elected than david duke himself could. it's not like steve skalise dnt know who david duke was. and then three years later, he's speaking at david duke's group. and the republicans in congress have decided to let him be the guy who replaces eric canter in the house leadership because
they say, oh, steve skalise probably just didn't know what he was doing. didn't know where he was. duke who? david what? steve skalise's most detailed explanation is that he was steeking about a tax brief. and the new reporting today, from the guy in lae louisiana who initially wrote that story, his reporting today is that steve skalis about the tax plan, itself, makes no sense. he hadn't even been filed in the state legislature on the day that steve skalise made his speech to the david duke white supremist group. but, apparently, republicans believe the story anyway. apparently, they're going to keep him in the leadership for the new congress. not a single member of congress has called for steve skalise to 12e7 down or emp for him just to withdraw from the number three leadership position in congress.
they are joined by david duke himself. this is the first time he made a related threat on that subject in an interview with fusion. he delivered a warning. treat skalise fairly. or, david duke said, he would be inclined to release a list of names of all of the politicians, both republicans and democrats, with whom he has ties. if skalise is going to be crucified, then a lot of them better be look over their shoulders. says david duke. and then he followed it up with this on cnn. >> you said this week that if he's crucified, i think that was your word choice. >> yeah. >> then you're going to name names. what are you talking about? >> i would name names of any democrat -- and i know some
democrats and republicans in the house of representatives who tried, in fact, urged me to support them. legally, i did. the governor of the state of louisiana, mr. foster, wanted my support. sm you're saying there are members of congress today who have relationships with you -- >> have had relationships. but they choose to keep that private. >> and that's fine. >> but you would call them out? >> i would call them out if they're hypocrite kal. >> david duke, that guy, is now threatening that asoeszuating with him and associating with his white supremist groups u has to become an okay thing in our modern politics. david duke now threatening that if steve skalise gets in trouble for his association with david duke and white supremist groups in louisiana, then david duke will disclose the names of all of the members of congress and all the elected o fishls who have associated himself over the years but that people don't know about yet. if you weren't going to get rid of steve skalise from the
leadership before, don't you have to now that david duke is demanding that he stays? i mean, are the republicans keeping steve skalise in their leadership replacing eric canter? are they replacing him with david duke without the baggage? because david duke will release more names of people he's worked with over the years unless steve skalise gets to keep that job? is that why they're keeping steve skalise in his job? it seems ridiculous? that he would get to determine who gets to be in the leadership of congress because he's able to make a threat like that. david duke gets to decide that? itsomes ridiculous. one way you could diffuse any suspicion about that and his ability to make threats about this, this implicit blackmail of lord knows how many members of congress, one way to take this threat off the table would just by e be to say hey, yeah, ask him.
don't use it as blackmail. just make it public. nobody should have anything to worry about that list being disclosed. and if you have partisan concerns, aparentally, it would be a bipartisan group. and, honestly, just as pure newsworthiness, it would be a darn newsworthy thing to know. whoelgs has been courting the david duke win of white supremacy. who else has done that? who else is on the list? that would be a newsworthy thing to know. it's newsworthy for steve skalise. we called david duke today to ask if he would release that information to us. we were told he was on the other line. he hasn't called back yet. we remain hopeful that we will hear back from him. we also called steve skalise's
>> in 2002,late this evening, though, politico is reporting that republicans in congress are now questioning whether steve skalise has become too great a liability for the republican party. it remains to be seen what role he can play in terms of roles in districts. republicans have remained a totally closed face on this before. they say they've reported him and nobody has been willing to put their names to any critical comments. tonight, unnamed republicans, willing to breech the prospect that steve skalise is too banged
up in a leadership role. is this the dam breaking? and, if so, what will be the political cost of the republican party letting him go. joining us now is john stanton. john, great to see you, thanks for being here. >> good to be here. >> so, before this politico piece came out tonight, my impression was that republicans thought this was over. they could wait it out. they were grateful it happened over the holidays and assumed it would go away over time if nobody said anything about it. is that now changing? is it your sense that's changing? >> well, actually, this has been a concern for leadership in particular for about a week or so. since this happened. they've looked at this and said, you know, if you can come back in in the first couple of days, clear the decks with this thing, make a couple statements and get it out of the way, everything will be fine. their question, though, is, if they come back and they are in
more revelations, if there's more questions that come up, like what they were e he was actually talking about, it is concerning to them. i think, tactically, for them, they did not want to get rid of him certainly before tomorrow. they want to make sure that boehner is back in the speaker ship role. your let-up is under the possibility a number can make a real run at taking over a spot. so they just don't want to have to replace him if they can avoid it. but i think the thing that they're now realizing is that this is sucking the oxygen out of the room for them. and they've got a bunch of things like keystone and the immigration issue that they're going to try to deal with next week. a couple other things they want to do at the front end to demonstrate this ability to govern. and to pass bills in both chambers. as long as skalise is in the news, it's killing that ability. >> i guess in terms of how to move forward, i mean, skalise released a bunch of sort of semi-self contradictory and evolving statements when the news first broke.
in recent dayings, he has stopped talking all together. >> they can't really hide him under a bushel if he's going to be under the leadership. >> leadership and other members, privately, have said to me that if he can find that route to do this and get this out of the way in the next, you know, like i said day or two, i think they're going to be okay being there. that said, he's going to be damaged. but the longer he's -- this is hitting him, the harder it's going to be for him to the e be the whip and out in front.
and, you know, again, it's a big part of being leadership. it is kind of tough to go to people and ask for money when you've got a david duke albatross hanging around your neck. >> it doesn't sound good in any language, no matter how you said that. >> john stem, john, thank you very much: i appreciate you being here. >> good to be here. >> i will say, david duke, anybody in the news business knows, is one of those sort of fringe guys that really thrives on publicity. i think he has never not returned a press call. the press is what is his life blood. i don't know if there is congress that david duke might release more names, but this is a guy who loves to be in the news, who loves to have his name out there. if he can do that by drip, drip, dripping more names out there in response to the way skalise is being treated, i'm sure he will. this story is not over by a long shot. we'll be right back.
mpx tomorrow, in federal court, the governor serves as attorney general and will get his new gig handed to him by a federal judge. that is bob mcdonald's career choice now unless he's somehow saved. that soap opera just ahead. ♪ when you don't get enough sleep... and your body aches... you're not yourself.
tylenol ® pm relieves pain and helps you fall fast asleep and stay asleep. we give you a better night. you're a better you all day. tylenol® [ male announcer ] you wouldn't leave your car unprotected. but a lot of us leave our identities unprotected. nearly half a million cars were stolen in 2012, but for every car stolen 34 people had their identities stolen. identity thieves can steal your money, damage your credit and wreak havoc on your life. why risk it when you can help protect yourself from identity theft with one call to lifelock, the leader in identity-theft protection? lifelock actively patrols your sensitive, personal information every second of every day, helping to guard your social security number, your bank accounts and credit, even the equity in your home -- your valuable personal assets. look. your bank may alert you to suspicious activity on your credit or debit card. but that still may leave you vulnerable to big losses
if a thief opens new accounts in your name or decides to drain your savings, home equity, or retirement accounts. and your credit report may only tell you after your identity's been compromised. but lifelock is proactive protection and watches out for you in ways that banks and credit-card companies alone just can't giving you the most comprehensive identity theft protection available. whenever the patented lifelock identity alert system detects a threat to your identity you'll be notified by phone, text, or e-mail, helping you to stop identity thieves before they do damage. you even get a $1 million service guarantee. that's right. if your identity is ever compromised, lifelock will spend up to $1 million on experts to help restore it. you wouldn't leave your car unprotected. don't leave your money, credit and good name unprotected. call now, and try lifelock risk-free for 60 days. act now, and get this document shredder free. that's a $29 value. ♪
or go to lifelock.com/go. try lifelock risk-free for 60 days and get this document shredder free -- a $29 value -- when you use promo code go. call now. just five days in the war in iraq in march, 2003, a big domestic crisis erupted for the george w. bush administration. everyone remembers the initial invasion as a pretty fast strike. u.s. forces overwhelmed the iraqi military almost everywhere they could find them. sadham hussein was top eled in a matter of weeks. but five days in, there was a hurj disaster for the u.s. troops on the ground in iraq. and there was a political disaster for the bush administration at the time. a small unit of american troops in iraq was ambushed by sadham hussein's envoy.
four u.s. troops were killed in the attack on that convoy and five american troops were captured. and the ones who were captured were then paraded on iraqi television. these were effectively prisoners of war being forced to appear in propaganda videos that were then broadcast all over the world. iraqi tv broadcasts also broadcast the bodies of images in that group. but this video of them parading american prisoners, this was sort of a shock to the american people in the very first week of the iraq war in march, 2003. when it happened, it prompted a very direct and very stern warning at the time from president george w. bush. >> if there is somebody captured and it looks like there may be, i expect those people to be treated humanely. i expect them to be treated the p.o.w.s, i expect them to be treated humanely.
and, just like we're treating the prisoners that we have captured humanely. if not, the people who mistreat the prisoners will be treated as war criminals. >> i expect those people to be treated humanely just like we're treating the prisoner that is we have captured humanely. the people who mistreat the prisoners will be treated as war criminals. that's president bush on march 23rd, 2003 talking specifically about those american troops who had been captured by the american military. that same day, as the president bush was warning, that those who mistreat prisoners will be treated by war criminals, as an example of how we treat prisoners in our custody to warn that prisoners must be treated humanely. that same day, half a world awant, u.s. personnel were hours away from completing their 183 water boarding session of captured al-qaida operative. president bush on march 23rd, said any mistreatment would constitute a war crime. on march 24, the next day,
underwent his 15th straight day of torture at hands of his american captors. but that day after that public warning, publicly warned iraq against committing war crimes, that's the day that the torture e e abruptly, finally stopped. why did it stop on the 15th day? we don't know. could just be a weird quirk of timing. but president bush's assurances to the world that the u.s. treats our prisoners humanely, that assertion was very publicly challenged just a few months later. the international committee of the red cross wrote a letter to the bush administration saying we have a list of prisoners you're holding at undeclared prisons around the world. and the red cross was specific about it. they said we know you have prisoners in country x. that you are not giving us access to as the red cross. you're mandated to give us access to prisoners by law. we know that you're not doing
it. and that letter from the red cross went to the u.s. state department. and the state department, at the time, appears to have been flabbergasted by this allegation. the state department sent a delegation to geneva, to red cross headquarters and said it was u.s. policy to encourage all countries to provide access to the red cross for detainees, including the specific country in question. secretary of state colon powell went as far as ordering the u.s. ambassador to demand that that country provide full access to the red cross for all prisoners being held in that country. so the red cross says to the country that you have prisoners that you're not giving access to. the state department always gives the red cross as e access to our prisoners and we demand that country x do the same thing mplt and while the state department was doing that, what we now know is that the c.i.a., behind the scenes, was telling that same country to deny the
red cross access to the c.i.a.'s prezzer ins being held in that country. one of the bomb shell revelations in the c.i.a. report, the report that came out last month, was that the s. e c.i.a. was conducting a separate foreign policy on its own. often in ways that were directly contradicting what other parts of the u.s. government were trying to do. the c.i.a. was telling those same countries, no, don't, do not do x. and the state department at the time presumably had no idea why this was happening. according to the senate report in two countries where if e they're hoeszing new deif he thinks facilities were taking place. the c.i.a. told local government officials in those countries that they should not inform u.s. ambassadors in those countries about what was going on. you're an ambassador trying to do your job and the c.i.a. is telling that other country to
keep things secret from you. you're an ambassador trying to negotiate with that country about the most important things in that relationship with the united states. and something incredibly sensitive and incredibly politically potent, is being negotiated by the cia with that country, you're not allowed to know about it. how can you do your job? and if the c.i.a. is doing that, in what sense were they acting as pat of the american government? >> senator diane finestein also advising today that going forward, all members of the security council should be informed of all significant
covert action and programs that are being conducted. and not just the principles, but the lawyers in their departments, as well, for obvious reasons. that's an important point, right. one of the things that has come out in the years since the bush presidency is that there were officials at the time who were worn e warning what was going on with the c.i.a. torture program. it wasn't right. one of those officials was phillip zeleca, deputy secretary of state of condoleezza rice. offered memos inside the state department in 2005 and 2006. o e so toward the very end of the torture program. the program should have been underway for years, was likely against the law. joining us now is phillip zeleca, a trusted advisor to condoleezza rice. mr. seleca,thanks for being here. >> glad to be here. >> you were counselor to the state department at a critical time.
did this happen, as far as you know, where the state department and specific ambassadors did not know that the c.i.a. was negotiating with other countries and did not know what the c.i.a. had told other countries to keep secret from the rest of our government? >> yes, that did happen. information about that and the senate report is 5:00 rat. it happened in the early phase of the program, especially in 2002 and 2003. >> when did the state department learn how it was sort of being hoodwinked here. and what was the reaction inside the department. >> one of the ambassadors actually had gotten some information about the existence of the program, challenged as for something from the secretary of state letting them know it was okay. the white house, this is in the senate report, the white house was then obliged to make sure that secretary powell, who was secretary of state at the time, and deputy secretary richard armitage were briefed. then they could talk to the ambassador and basically ask him
to go along with what was being done with the administration at that time. that was in one of the countries in which there was a black site. in general, the identity of the countries in which these black sites existed and everyone in the administration, it's not at all clear that president bush,himself, knew which countries were the locations of black sites, there was a sense in c.i.a. that, if you koent know then you can't say anything untrue about it. >> the implication from reading the senate report is that the decision to keep president bush and potentially vice president cheney in the dark about which countries had these facilities was essentially a deliberate decision in which the president and vice president knew that there was something they should not know. they thereby at least implicitly, the implication is, consented to not knowing. it seemed different with regard
to the state department. there's this one very damning line in the torture report where, basically, an tern e internal c.i.a. memo, it says the white house says that colin powell should not be briefed about these things. he'll blow his stack if he is briefed. is it your sense that the state department department have the opportunity to opt out of knowing this information in the same way that other senior people of the administration did? >> that's fair. there's a technical point e point that is missed a little bit in senator finestein's regulation when she talks about covert actions. this's actually current policy. the technical point that a lot of people don't understand is that when this program was first proposed, it was not proposed as a covert action. it was proposed as an intelligence collection measure. the arcane point is that the bureaucratics for how you get approval for doing an intelligence collection, like
running an espionage operation, is not the same as getting the policy approval for a covert action. which is a policy measure. the e because this was presented as a malter of intelligence collection,it circumvented the usual covert action approval procedures and circumvented the secretary of state. >> did it go through the proper procedures for being an intelligence collection measure? >> those procedures are really very simple. it's that the intelligence agency decides it wants to do it. if it's important enough, it asks the president for permission. he asked the c.i.a. one, is this effective, and then he asked the attorney general is this legal? the attorney general said it's legal and the c.i.a. said it's effective. and the president, after months of circling around this said, well, okay then. phillip zelikow, i have a feeling with these recommendations coming out now, obviously, there were no
okay. nothing naturally occurring drops off this much from one year to the next. but this just happened. and that very dramatic story is next. shopping online is as easy as it gets. wouldn't it be great if hiring plumbers, carpenters and even piano tuners were just as simple? thanks to angie's list now it is. we've made hiring anyone from a handyman to a dog walker as simple as a few clicks. buy their services directly at angieslist.com no more calling around. no more hassles. start shopping from a list of top-rated providers today. angie's list is revolutionizing local service again. visit angieslist.com today.
if you are one of the declining number of people in this country that's in a union, then your union negotiates on your behalf. if those negotiations come to an impasse, your union might, as a last ditch bargaining option, organize a strike. for example, right now 1800 unionized employees of fairpoint communications in new england are on the 81st day of a strike. that company and its workers have a disagreement about how much to cut employee benefits. when neither side would budge, the workers walked out. workers at public surface jobs go on strike it can cause more chaos. in 2013, employees of the transit system in the san francisco bay area went on strike. hundreds of thousands of people who commute by train had to find different ways to get to work. that's generally the idea of a strike. makes life so bad for everybody involved that everybody rushes
back to the bargaining table to help everybody out. some unions just aren't allowed to strike. police unions and firefighters are prevented from striking. if cops walk out, who takes care of public safety? who responds when there are crimes committed? who is going to do their jobs if police officers won't? to the state and city governments allowing police to walk off the job in protest would, a, hand them far too big a bargaining chip and it would be dangerous for the public. in most places it's banned by law. right now in america's largest city, police appear to be doing the closest thing they can to an illegal strike. in the two weeks since nypd officers rafael ramos and wenjian liu were murdered, there's been a dramatic drop in police activity in new york city. this is the number of arrests made during christmas week and new year's week a year ago. and this is the same time period
this year. the number of arrests plummeted, dropped by 50% from this time last year. these are the numbers for arrests. these are for people being issued criminal summons. this year compared with last year, summons down 90%. police just aren't doing this work anymore. and it's everything. this is the drop-off for moving violations, speeding tickets. this is the year to year drop-off for parking tickets. the drop-off from what is normal policing to what is happening now is incredible. after those two officers were killed last month, a memo attributed to the police union advised officers to not make arrests, quote, unless absolutely necessary. now that the numbers are in, the union is denying this huge decline in arrests and summons and tickets is any sort of coordinated action. must be a coincidence. some kind of fluke. police in america's largest city are mad at politicians and the
new york mayor in particular because they feel they don't get enough support for what they do. right now it appears they are just stopping much of what they do. for two weeks running now. the police unions are denying that's what they are doing. plainly that's what they are doing. if you don't want the police arresting people and ticketing people, then the police giving up doing their jobs might seem like a good thing. but if you think police play a role in keeping a big city safe, then what new york police are doing right now, without admitting they are doing it, is a pretty radical form of holding a city hostage. if they don't feel like they have support now, is this how they are supposed to earn it back? literally. you had to go deep into the cupboard. embarrassingly deep. can this mismatched mess be conquered...
[ aniston ] when people ask me what i'm wearing, i tell them aveeno®. [ female announcer ] aveeno® daily moisturizing lotion has active naturals® oat with five vital nutrients. [ aniston ] because beautiful skin goes with everything. aveeno®. naturally beautiful results™. tomorrow is going to be a day of high drama in a courtroom in richmond, virginia. at 10:00 a.m., proceedings will start in the sentence of virginia republican governor bob mcdonnell who was convicted of 11 felony corruption charges.
the first virginia governor in history to be indicted, let alone convict forward crimes committed while in office. two things to watch here. first, nobody knows how much time he's going to get. a federal agency looks at the conviction and sentencing guidelines and makes a recommendation for how much time the convict should get. in mcdonnell's case, the recommendation is a 10 to 12-year sentence in prison. if he gets that sentence, federal prison will say that sentence is long enough he wouldn't be allowed to serve it in minimum security. he'd be in the kind of prison you'd imagine when you think of prison. the defense side says they don't want any time in prison, despite the 11 felony convictions. they say he should just do community service. they've turned in over 400 letters asking the judge to be lenient because mcdonnell is such an excellent guy. the prosecution has said yes, we're sure he's a great guy and a great character. the vast majority of the nation's governors are good, hard-working, civic minded people. not one of them would claim
those characteristics are a license to commit bribery without fear of jailtime. that's the tenor of the fight between the defense and the prosecution that's part of the reason there's dramatic tension about what's going to happen tomorrow morning. the other reason everyone is expecting drama is both sides are going to call witnesses to make their case for what the sentence should be tomorrow. bob mcdonnell is expected to plead his case to plead not to be sent to prison. nobody knows who else is going to get called to please for him or to plead for him to get sent away. one former virginia governor says he's been asked to prepare a statement in case he gets call tomorrow at the hearing but nobody knows who is going to be there. nobody knows what anybody is going to say. at the end of that hearing, the judge will declare how long governor bob mcdonnell will have to serve and where. and then next month we'll go through it all again with the governor's wife when she gets sentenced for all her felony convictions.
that hearing starts tomorrow in richmond, virginia. it should be a very dramatic scene. "first look" is up next. good morning, right now on "first look," a big chill moves in on the eastern 2/3 of the u.s. so when will we see some relief? at the stroke of midnight florida became the 36th u.s. state to allow same-sex marriage and couples were already lining up. plus, a flu outbreak explodes in the u.s. already nearly twice as bad as last year. dramatic video of a fireworks factory blast. and the latest best high-tech gadgets. we'll go live to the consumer electronics show in las vegas. thanks for joining us today. i'm betty ng