Skip to main content

tv   The Rachel Maddow Show  MSNBC  February 26, 2015 1:00am-2:01am PST

1:00 am
and we will continue to have this conversation on msnbc. thank you for being a part of it. we're going to continue this conversation on the rundown and throughout msnbc. it's an important issue, one that i thank you for letting us be a part of your day. [ applause ] this is a big night here at msnbc. thank you for joining us tonight. what you just saw was president obama with jose diaz vallart. the conversation happening at florida international university in miami. president obama i think making news in a bunch of ways in that appearance. this is my take on what just happened. i think he made a bunch of news. and not just for his super inflammatory accusation that jose dyes his hair. rest assured we will get to the bottom of that outrage. president obama also tonight in his appearance is taking a direct shot at likely 2016 presidential candidate jeb bush. i'm not sure i've ever heard him
1:01 am
talk about jeb bush before tonight. but he did so directly tonight in a very negative way. that was a bit of a shock. president obama tonight also saying bluntly, and with -- for him what counts as a lot of emotion, that it is the republican party specifically that is to blame for why this hasn't been immigration reform in the country. he said it is the republicans' faults specifically, calling republicans out by name. the president also tonight got mad twice by my count at questions suggesting that he and the democrats share some of the blame with the republicans. the president totally rejecting that tonight. president obama tonight weighing in on the current drama in washington as we speak. i don't think he has done this before. this appearance with jose that he just did. but tonight the president flat-out dared republicans in congress to take a vote, to try to pass a bill on whether or not his own actions as president on the issues of immigration were legal. the president tonight explicitly
1:02 am
dared the republican party to take that vote. and he said if such a vote passed, quote, i will veto that. president obama also making this tonight, not just on the politics, but on the substance, and this is the first sound byte i want to play here. the president got this very intense question, emotionally powerful moment at this event, when a wounded afghanistan war vet posed this direct question to him. the president responded personally to this young vet on his direct question. but then i think he also made some news for the whole country in terms of what he said next. watch. >> when i was 17, i joined the u.s. army. actually, my mom had to sign because i was so young. my 18th birthday i spent in basic training. my 21st birthday was spent in afghanistan. i was actually shot on my birthday. you know, i came back. i'm a wounded warrior. i was medically discharged from the military in 2011. and i come back home, and only
1:03 am
to find out that i'm fighting another war with my mother, trying to keep her here. so i just want to ask you, mr. president, if there has to be some kind of gray area for a situation like this, because i put in a lot of time and i love this country. and i just feel like if it wasn't for her signing those papers, i wouldn't ever have been able to join this great american army. so i want to ask you if there's any way that situation could be handled a little better. >> first of all, let me just say thank you, eric, for your incredible service to our country. i'm confident that your mother qualifies under the executive action program that i've put forward. right now, the judge has blocked us initiating the program where she can come and sign up and get registered. but in the meantime, part of the message that i'm sending is, if you qualified for the executive action that i put forward, then
1:04 am
we're still going to make sure that your mom is not prioritized in terms of enforcement. and she should feel confident about that. so i just want to assure her short term. >> president obama making some news tonight here on msnbc, saying that even though a federal judge in texas has blocked his executive action, that would have protected from deportation like this young wounded veteran's mother, even though that new program is blocked right now by that federal judge in texas, president obama tonight said that he has still taken action despite that judge's ruling basically to deprioritize deportation proceedings against people like that guy's mom. against people who would qualify for that program, if that program were allowed to be in effect. this is going to make republicans nuts, right? i mean, this is the president effectively saying, that he is making this change in u.s. immigration policy.
1:05 am
he is making it. even though they are so mad about it in washington, and even though that federal judge has formally blocked his actions. this is president obama saying he's going to do it with his executive authority to decide what becomes an enforcement priority or not. regardless of the republicans being so mad, and regardless of that federal judge. wow. he also went on at the end of that specific q&a to say that his previous executive action on immigration called daca is not blocked by what this texas judge just did. he said there are hundreds of thousands of kids and young people who qualify for the previous executive action. and the president tonight encouraged them to all come forward and get legal status right now. this also is going to make republicans crazy. >> those who already signed up, you need to understand that has not been challenged in court. what's also important is we still have several hundred thousand young people who qualify for that original executive action back in 2012
1:06 am
who have not yet taken advantage of it. and now's the time for all of you to take advantage of it. >> in washington, the republicans thought if they showed sufficient anger about president obama's executive actions on immigration, he would back off, change his mind, or at least get less aggressive of acting on their own. their actions have seemed to have the opposite effect. here's the part where he dared them to say what he has already done on his own terms is illegal. he dared them to act on that. and these comments from the president tonight, this is about what's going on in washington right now as we speak. >> we're going to be as aggressive as we can, because not only do we know the law is on our side, but history is on our side. in the meantime what i say to the republicans is, instead of trying to hold hostage funding for the department of homeland security which is so important for our national security, fund that and let's get on with
1:07 am
actually passing comprehensive immigration reform. so in the short term, if mr. mcconnell, the leader of the senate, and the speaker of the house, john boehner, want to have a vote on whether what i'm doing is legal or not, they can have that vote. i will veto that vote. because i'm absolutely confident that what we're doing is the right thing to do. [ applause ] >> president obama tonight daring republicans to take a vote, specifically on blocking him on immigration, saying, quote, i will veto that. if it passes. the president tonight also showing a little bit of temper when jose and the questioners at this town hall repeatedly questioned whether president obama himself and the democratic party, not just the republicans, but the democrats, too, could have done more to try to get immigration fixed. >> owen from houston said, why do the democrats and gop play political ping-pong when american families suffer as a
1:08 am
result. >> wait, wait, wait. i appreciate the applause. let me just say, that's just not true. the notion that democrats and republicans play political ping-pong. democrats have consistently stood on the side of comprehensive immigration reform. [ applause ] >> democrats have provided strong majorities across the board for comprehensive immigration reform. and you do a disservice when you suggest that, ah, nobody was focused on this. because then you don't know who's fighting for you and who's fighting against you. but let's not be confused about why we don't have comprehensive immigration reform right now. it's very simple. the republican speaker of the house, john boehner, refused to call the bill. had he called the bill, the overwhelming majority of democrats, and a handful of republicans, would have provided the majority in order to get that done.
1:09 am
>> mr. president, i want to -- >> a couple of times tonight president obama got sort of visibly exasperated by the suggestion that republicans and democrats somehow share the blame for immigration not getting fixed while he has been president. he also tonight -- this is interesting 2016 politics here -- president obama tonight also took ooh question in spanish about whether jeb bush, who has a pretty good chance of being the republican nominee for president in 2016, he was asked whether jeb bush might be a cause for hope on the republican side, because of his relatively more moderate position on the issue of immigration reform. he's in fact championed immigration reform in the past. is that a cause for hope. president obama was having none of that. watch this. >> i appreciate mr. bush being concerned about immigration reform. i would suggest that what he do is talk to the speaker of the house and the members of his party.
1:10 am
[ applause ] >> because the fact of the matter is that even after we pass bipartisan legislation in the senate, i gave the republicans a year and a half -- a year and a half -- to just call the bill. we had the votes. they wouldn't do it. >> president obama taking a bit of a shot at jeb bush tonight, saying he appreciates that jeb bush says he's concerned about immigration reform, but when it came time to actually get it done, he didn't lift a finger with his own party to get it done, when it actually could have been possible. so like i said, the president made a lot of news tonight. even before he got to the part about jose's hair. >> the people who are least likely to vote are young people. so young people, you need to think ahead, too. when we work on these issues, most of us -- i'm going to include jose -- i'm going to include jose in the category of
1:11 am
being old. >> we're the same age. >> he looks a little better because, you know, i don't dye my hair. >> i know. [ applause ] >> i'm messing with him. >> usually these -- the presidential forum things, town hall things are an opportunity for everybody to repeat their talking points, right? tonight was not like that. tonight was a friendly version of it. but it was basically rock 'em sock 'em robots with jose and president obama down at fiy in miami. joining us now is jose. congratulations, jose, on this event. you made a ton of news tonight. congratulations. >> thank you, rachel. thank you so very much. it was a night of hair color, and a whole lot more. and you know what, rachel, one of the real privileges of being
1:12 am
able to do this tonight with the president was that we were able to ask questions that a lot of people have on their minds, and don't often get a chance to ask. my staff went through -- combed through hundreds, hundreds of questions on our facebook and twitter, instagram accounts in spanish, and in english, and we were able to distill some of the questions that we brought to the president. and you know what, sometimes it may seem as though it's uncomfortable to ask questions of the president, questions that aren't normally asked. >> mm-hmm. >> and the fact is that it was really a privilege to be able to do that. and i felt that he was very open tonight. i think that as you say, he was very combative, and i think he said some very clear delineations of how he believes thing. it was very interesting that he said that he was still optimistic that maybe immigration reform could be achieved within the two years that he has left of his administration.
1:13 am
there are so many subjects that we talked upon -- touched upon tonight, even though it was focused on immigration, and so many stories of real people. because rachel, when it's all said and done, when we're talking about immigration and immigration reform, it's not just numbers, and it's not just politics, and it's not just how did the president do, it's also about people. people who are directly affected by this. people whose mother and father are in danger of being deported as we speak. we mentioned tonight on that town hall someone who said that their husband was deported just last week as he was getting his papers in order. i think that it was an important opportunity for the president to speak clearly, and he did so. >> jose, let me ask you about one of those personal back-and-forths that the president had, the first question you took in person from the audience. the young veteran wounded in afghanistan, talked about having signed up when he was so young his mom had to sign off and okay him signing up.
1:14 am
he said, yeah, i came home from fighting that war, now the new war i'm fighting is trying to keep my mother from being deported. when the president answered that very, very intense question, i've got to ask, do you think he made some news there when he said, i think your mother should know she's safe, that she is the person we are de-emphasizing in terms of enforcement priority, even though this judge blocked this program, we will still not be deporting somebody in her shoes. was that news to you? >> it certainly was. and then the follow-up, which was, well, where are the consequences and what are the consequences if people don't agree to do what you have asked them to do in the federal government? because, rachel, the fact is, that last week somebody was deported when they were going through their paperwork through legalization, because they had married an american citizen. they had a child together in this country. they were deported just last week. are there consequences to the
1:15 am
president's decisions and orders. i think he was very clear tonight that there will be, and that he's very, very categorical on, that this is not a position to take just for politics. even though i pushed him on it. because it was one of the most requested questions that i received, which was, folks asks me, when is it going to be not about politics, and about people. >> jose diazbalart. >> can we zoom in on this? there is what i call the obama color, which is his salt and pepper hair. that's exactly what i have. >> are you saying that you do dye your hair but dye it to look like his? or are you saying you're denying the whole dyeing accusation altogether? [ speaking spanish ] >> my friend, we are so lucky to have you. congratulations again. i'll vouch for your hair to
1:16 am
anybody. >> thank you. >> amazing stuff here on msnbc tonight. we've got lots ahead. a very big show. please stay with us. muddling through allergies. try zyrtec® for powerful allergy relief. and zyrtec® is different than claritin. because it starts working faster on the first day you take it. zyrtec®. muddle no more™.
1:17 am
just because i'm away from my desk doesn't mean i'm not working. comcast business understands that. their wifi isn't just fast near the router. it's fast in the break room. fast in the conference room. fast in tom's office. fast in other tom's office. fast in the foyer [pronounced foy-yer] or is it foyer [pronounced foy-yay]? fast in the hallway. i feel like i've been here before.
1:18 am
switch now and get the fastest wifi everywhere. comcast business. built for business. the reporter who broke open the bill o'reilly fox news story that has everybody so upset.
1:19 am
mr. president, when you had absolute control of congress, you really didn't fight for immigration. and then when you had the situation where you lost the majority, then you take action. is there political implications behind something that affects so many people, so close to their
1:20 am
hearts? >> i don't know if anybody remembers, jose, that when i took office and i had a majority, we had the worst financial crisis since the great depression. the global economy was collapsing. [ applause ] the unemployment rate in the latino community and immigrant community had soared. people were losing homes and entire communities were being devastated. so it wasn't as if i was just sitting back, not doing anything. >> no one says you were sitting back. >> we were moving very aggressively on a whole host of issues. and we moved as fast as we could, and we wanted immigration done. we pushed for immigration to be done. but ultimately we could not get the votes to get it all done. now, this is one of the challenges of being president is, they're crying means everywhere. even in the latino community,
1:21 am
even in the immigrant community. i don't regret having done the aca i just described for you. there are millions of people who are not going to go bankrupt because they got sick, because we got that done. so the question is, would i have loved to have gotten everything done in the first two years, absolutely. because then for the next six i could have relaxed. but what we do is, we choose to push as hard as we can on all fronts. some things are politically easier, some things are politically more difficult. >> president obama tonight defending the fact that he didn't get immigration reform done when democrats had full control of congress. saying he wished he could have. now he is still trying. joining us now is christina jimenez, she came to the country when she was a student.
1:22 am
really nice to see you. thanks very much for being here. >> thanks for having me again, rachel. >> so how did you feel about president obama's town hall today? this was a solid, like 45 minutes, a full hour of discussion almost entirely about immigration. how did you feel about what the president said today? what was your takeaway? >> i thought this was a good first step. in the midst of a legal challenge of the actions that the president took on immigration, again, after so much pressure from organizations like united we dream, and others within the immigrant community. i think this was a good first step to instill confidence in our community, that the president is going to use everything in his power to make sure that we're able to get through this legal hurdle and be able to implement the deferred action programs that he announced in november of last year, that could benefit people like my mom and my dad, who have been here with me for the last
1:23 am
17 years, and who are really eager to be able to apply for the deferred action program, because they will be able to qualify for daca. so i was really encouraged by that, and by looking at the president standing firm on his decision, and proceeding with legal action immediately. what i would have loved to see more, or get more clarity from the president is, how do we ensure our community is not going to fall in the trap of deportations and detentions when we know that the agency has not followed, really, guidelines before, the department of homeland security. >> that seemed like that was a real theme in terms of especially when jose was pushing him on it. he said he had a lot of questions for the president, that he got on facebook and twitter and other places. he said, listen, the policies that we're hearing from you are not what we're seeing on the ground in terms of enforcement priorities, in terms of the whole idea of felons, not families, and people not having
1:24 am
their families split up as a matter of enforcement prioritization. it seems to be -- i'm not sure the president was totally prepared for those questions, basically people are saying to him, what you are expressing as policy is not what is being carried out by the various agencies of homeland security that are doing this stuff on the ground. >> yes. and the question is, how are you going to ensure that your own agency, mr. president, is going to be able to implement the guidelines that they have set up. and the people like my parents in the midst of legal limbo right now because we have a temporary hold on the daca program, how do people like my parents that still live, you know, without fearing that they could be detained or deported. and also what about the people who did not qualify for daca and dapa, including the people who are illegal immigrants who were not able to be part -- or benefit from this program. i don't feel like the president really answered that question.
1:25 am
so from the united we dream things that we're going to be really watching out for, and continue to ask the president, how would you ensure that for our communities. >> cristina jimenez, really nice to see you. thank you very much for being here. >> thanks for having me, rachel. meanwhile, on capitol hill today, it was republican versus republican, deciding whether or not no shut down homeland security.
1:26 am
1:27 am
1:28 am
just because i'm away from my desk doesn't mean i'm not working. comcast business understands that. their wifi isn't just fast near the router. it's fast in the break room. fast in the conference room. fast in tom's office. fast in other tom's office. fast in the foyer [pronounced foy-yer] or is it foyer [pronounced foy-yay]? fast in the hallway.
1:29 am
i feel like i've been here before. switch now and get the fastest wifi everywhere. comcast business. built for business. on the list of journalists who fox news's bill o'reilly is questioning for past reporting assignments, on that list are upcoming guests, ranks right up top. david corn, joins us live tonight in much more fraught circumstances than we usually see david in. please stay with us. you know, in any job any profession image matters. i want some gray...but not too much. only touch of gray uses oxygen to gently blend away some gray but not all for that perfect salt and pepper look. satisfaction guaranteed.
1:30 am
just you and the look you want. just for men touch of gray
1:31 am
1:32 am
my advice for healthy looking radiant skin. a good night's sleep... and aveeno®. [ female announcer ] only aveeno® positively radiant has an active naturals® total soy formula. it helps reduce the look of brown spots in just four weeks. aveeno®. naturally beautiful results™. okay. i got something wrong on this show a couple nights ago. i said two nights ago that duke energy was forced to clean up its big toxic coal ash in south carolina because they got sued. what actually happened is environmentalists sued the other two utility companies in that state. once duke energy saw those lawsuits and once the group that brought the lawsuits made clear that duke was probably going to be next, duke actually settled with the groups out of court and agreed to clean up their giant toxic coal ash lagoons. it was an out-of-court settlement, not a lawsuit. i got that wrong. i'm sorry.
1:33 am
also, the fine that duke energy is now paying for one of their giant toxic coal ash lagoons bursting in north carolina, looks like it's not the second largest fine anybody's ever paid under the clean water act. maybe it's the fourth largest? it's hard to find a definitive score for this kind of stuff it turns out. other people have reported that duke is paying the second largest fine here ever. but i think now looking at it again, that they're probably fourth largest and not second largest. in which case i got that wrong, too, i'm sorry. i'm honestly very sorry about that. i regret the error. i'm wearing a hair shirt underneath my blazer here. but that's how it goes. it's not that hard to do. but it feels good to do it. you don't want to get stuff wrong, but it happens. but then you correct it, and then you can move on. chastened, but clean. that's how it works. and then there's this kind of
1:34 am
problem. to which the hair shirt apparently does not fit. we're still waiting to see if there will be some sort of apology, some sort of corrective action concerning the biggest kahuna in all of cable news, a man with any other news organization would be in a fight for his professional life right now. but so far for him, apparently no consequences. cable news controversies are not the sort of thing that usually rise to the level of national news. this one, though, has now become a national news story, in part because it has put the biggest news network in cable news in the position of not behaving like a news organization at all. and, you know, i will tell you honestly, from my personal heart, i know that all of us in this business snipe at each other and criticize, right? and sometimes we criticize each other in very harsh terms. but there is a certain level that we all recognize that we're doing the work. we have reporters, and correspondents, and press credentials.
1:35 am
we participate in basic stuff like pooled coverage of national events and speeches at the white house, right? we all stand for freedom of the press, because we all count on freedom of the press to be able to do our work that we all do. we have our differences, yes, but in the most fundamental ways we are the same species. except now maybe not. this story started thursday when david corn and david schulman at mother jones magazine who said bill o'reilly over time and frequently in multiple venues, including his current gig on fox news, he misrepresented his reporting for cbs news in the faulkland war. it was fought between argentina and the uk but not fought on the mainland of either country. it was fought on the faulkland islands, which are an isolated place. what david pointed out is mr. o'reilly said he reported from, quote, an active war zone.
1:36 am
he said he was in a war zone in argentina, in the faulklands. that does not appear to have been the case. mr. o'reilly did report on the faulklands report, but he reported on that war from mainland argentina, from the capital city, which is more than 1,000 miles away from the fighting in the faulklands. mr. o'reilly tried to defend himself by saying, yeah well, he did cover a rowdy protest in the capital of argentina. but covering a protest about a war is not the same thing as covering the actual war, or being in a war zone, which is how he has repeatedly described what he did. so that's not good. no correction or apology, though. instead, the response has been, attack! >> basically david corn, a liar, says i exaggerated situations in the faulklands war and salvadoran war. everything i said about my career is true.
1:37 am
i had to spend hours last night on the phone with various reporters, crawling around my basement covered with dust, trying to find documents from 33 years ago. again, it was a miracle i found them. all because an irresponsible gutter snipe, a far left zealot who has attacked fox news many times before spit things out on the net. >> an irresponsible gutter snipe, a liar. mr. o'reilly then went further than that. he gave an interview in which he said that when the truth came out about this story, david corn would be, quote, in the kill zone, where he deserves to be. when mother jones challenged that comment as basically out of bounds, after retraction or apology, bill o'reilly said it was just a figure of speech, did not take it back. he went on to threaten other reporters who tried to report out this story. after the kill zone comments, mr. o'reilly then told a reporter from "the new york times" that if he saw any of her
1:38 am
coverage was inappropriate, quote, i'm coming after you with everything i have. you can take it as a threat. fox news has reported on stuff, they have to know their news organization would have their back if they got threatened for just doing their job as reporters. fox news, i am sure, does not want its reporters threatened for doing their jobs. but fox news has not said anything about their flagship host issuing these threats to reporters at other news organizations. and that just seems untenable for a news organization. not just for mr. o'reilly who issued the threats, but for his employer, who is effectively endorsing them with this statement of unqualified support they put out for mr. o'reilly in the midst of all this. i mean, this has got to send a chill down the spine of anyone who reports for fox in dangerous situations. and for mr. o'reilly himself, the problem is getting worse and
1:39 am
not better over time. since david corn's report last week and mr. o'reilly's loud and bombastic threats, fox and mr. o'reilly have had a different response to new allegations raised about mr. o'reilly's reporting since then. there were questions raised about events that he raised in his book about the jfk assassination. he reports traveling to florida in 1977 to try to interview an acquaintance of jfk asassin lee harvey oswald. he said he heard the shotgun blast of the suicide of the man. he has told it on the fox news channel as well. >> i reported on this guy when i was working at wfaa tv in dallas. i can put that together. i chased the shield to florida, and i was about to knock on the door where he was, and he blew
1:40 am
his brains out with a shotgun. >> oh, my goodness, really? no, not really. at least not according to colleagues of bill o'reilly's at the time who said this week that he was not actually in florida when that man killed himself at his florida home. let alone standing on the guy's doorstep and able to hear the shotgun blast. mr. o'reilly was actually, according to his colleagues, in dallas, texas, at the time the suicide happened in florida. that account appears to be corroborated by one of bill o'reilly's sources at that time, who wrote in his autobiography in 1993 who got a call from o'reilly the day of the suicide. this reporter, bill o'reilly, calling from dallas, wanted to know if the reports about this florida suicide were true. is this thing true that i now claim i personally witnessed? >> i chased the shield to florida and i was about to knock on the door where he was.
1:41 am
his daughter's house. and he blew his brains out with a shotgun. >> we reached out to the fox news channel today to see if they had any comment to the latest reporting and the way he's talked about it on the fox news channel. they so far have not responded to our requests for comment on that. they appear to be deflecting requests for comment on this matter to the publisher of mr. o'reilly's book about the jfk assassination. so we also reached out to the publisher of mr. o'reilly's book about the jfk assassination. the publisher told us, we fully stand behind bill o'reilly and count him as one of our most important authors. this one passage is immaterial to the book. we have no plans to look into this matter. it doesn't matter, we don't care if it's not true, we're not looking into it. mr. o'reilly has also faced krit criticism for saying he saw nuns killed in el salvador. here's him making that claim on
1:42 am
fox news right after the newtown elementary school massacre, about the nature of evil. >> i don't think a lot of people understand, my mother, for example, doesn't understand evil. when i would tell her, hey, mom, i was in el salvador and i saw nuns get shot in the back of the head. she couldn't process it. >> mr. o'reilly did not see nuns get shot in the back of the head in el al va dor. even if that is what he told his poor mom. american catholic nuns were killed in el salvador in december 1980. mr. o'reilly did not see them killed. he did not visit el salvador until the following year. fox news gave a statement about where that came from. since there's no way he could have actually seen what he said he saw. their statement is this, quote, while in el salvador, reporters were shown images of things not broadcast.
1:43 am
the segment was about evil and how hard it is for people to comprehend it. no one could possibly take that segment as reporting on el salvador. that statement from mr. o'reilly tonight saying he was not literally talking about el salvador, he was talking about evil in the context of newtown. the only reason he brought it up. that does not explain, however, why mr. o'reilly said the exact same thing seven years before newtown never happened. >> i've seen much worse behavior on the masculine side than the feminine side in my life. i've seen guys gu nuns in el sal >> no, he hasn't. but right now he's not correcting that. as for whether or not fox is taking any action about not just this stuff, not just the factual stuff, but whether or not fox is taking any action about the
1:44 am
threats to reporters, that have characterized their anchor's response to the scandal so far. we have just heard from fox on that tonight. we've got that statement from them, next. along with david corn here live. the reporter who started this whole terrifying thing rolling with his reporting. please do stay with us.
1:45 am
1:46 am
the reporter who bill o'reilly called an irresponsible gutter snipe and a liar who belongs in a kill zone, he joins us live here in just a moment. stay with us. actually a nice guy. jamie, maybe we weren't the lowest rate this time. but when you show people their progressive direct rate and our competitors' rates you can't win them all. the important part is, you helped them save. thanks, flo. okay, let's go get you an ice cream cone, champ. with sprinkles? sprinkles are for winners. i understand.
1:47 am
is there such a thing as a sure thing in business? some say buy gold. others say buy soybeans. i say, buy comcast business internet. unlike internet providers that slow down when traffic picks up, you get speed you can rely on. it's a safe bet. like a gold-plated soybean. reliably fast internet starts at $69.95 a month. comcast business. built for
1:48 am
business. basically, david corn, a liar, says i exaggerated situations in the faulklands war and el salvadoran war. everything i've said about hi rep tor yal career, everything, is true. >> david corn, a liar. david corn's reporting on bill o'reilly from the fox news channel has so far, i have to tell you, not been materially factually disputed. but mr. corn has been called a lot of names, and he has been directly threatened, along with some other reporters who have picked up the story over the past few days. fox news gave us a new statement about the scandal surrounding mr. o'reilly. they told us this, quote, bill o'reilly addressed several claims leveled against him. this is nothing more than an orchestrated campaign by mother jones and media matters. responding to the unproven accusation du jour has become an exercise in futility.
1:49 am
fox news maintains its staunch support of o'reilly who is no stranger to calculated onslaughts. joining us for the interview is david corn from mother joins and msnbc political analyst and full disclosure, my bud. nice to see you. >> it's good to be here tonight, rachel. >> how is it going? normal week for you? >> yeah, everything's fine on team gutter snipe. what can i say. >> what has this been like for you? i know you are a thick-skinned guy. you've been involved in very high stakes reporting over the years. including very recent years. has this been difficult for you being threatened and attacked like this? >> you're right, i am thick-skinned, and i've watched bill o'reilly and fox news over the years. in fact, i used to work there from 2001 to 2008, and often was praised by bill when i was on his show, not as a liar, but as a good reporter. that was then, this is now.
1:50 am
so it didn't surprise me that the tactics that bill o'reilly and fox news resorted to after the story came out, was insult, bombast, denial. but i have to say i was surprised by the use of rhetoric that had a violent tone to it. and the fact that after saying that, neither bill o'reilly or anybody at fox, including some of the people i used to work with there, felt obligated to say well, that's going too far. apparently they think id's proper for one journalist to call another one names and also to say they ought to be put in the kill zone. the thing that bothers me most about that, not that it scares me off the story or anything, but i have family members, i have friends who are concerned about me now. and why?
1:51 am
only because i'm doing my job as a reporter in washington, d.c., not in a war zone, and yet they now fear that, you know, that language like that might have repercussions. i don't know. i don't want to be all doomsday about it. but i do know it's highly inappropriate and just from a sake of humanity, he can call me a liar, even though he doesn't disprove, as you noted, a single fact in the story that we wrote. but talking about putting me in a place of death? i mean, if he can't recognize that's going too far, i guess that speaks for itself. >> i feel like -- and this is just my impression, and i haven't been in the business as long as you have. but i feel the explicit threat to you and to this "new york times" journalist, i feel like it is untenable that fox could stand by those.
1:52 am
if only because they employ a lot of journalists, including those who work at risky situations. fox is a good place to work for journalists. part of the way they're able to attract real talent, especially on the straight news side, is because they are an organization that will stand up for their reporters, just like any real news organization will. so i feel like that is untenable for fox as an organization. it's a much more open question whether or not the substance of your reporting that mr. o'reilly has misrepresented himself over the years, whether that's something they will have to correct. >> i do think they're separate issues, and a lot of different ways that he could have responded. he could have went through it point by point and said you're wrong. he could have ignored it. maybe the story would have gone away for him. or he could have said, i misremembered some things. you got me. not a big deal. there are a lot of different ways to do this.
1:53 am
but they went all-out, and i think what is the obvious thing here is that the story itself is not an allegation. mother jones isn't claiming that bill o'reilly said or did these things. we are presenting videotape and his own words. people can -- on the right, left, in the middle, can look at it and come to a decision all of their own. we're reporting inconsistencies, we're not making allegations. and yet bill o'reilly, we have video of him saying, when i was in the war zone in argentina in the faulklands. then he comes out and says in the last couple of days, i never said i was in the faulklands. well, people can compare and contrast and come to whatever conclusion they want. but i guess you can call me a liar for putting up his own video, contradicting what he
1:54 am
says. but that really doesn't -- i hate to say this, but it shouldn't win the argument. but for his audience it might be effective. >> that's the strategic -- that's the strategy, to say that you have disproven something without bothering of having done it and hoping the loudness of your argument wins. bombast is easy to come by in our business on all sides, but threats against other journalists for being journalists is not tenable in this business for any news organization, unless they're not going to pretend to be a news organization anymore. david corn, thank you for helping us understand this and i'm sorry that you got threatened. >> well, thank you for having me and giving a very good explanation. i appreciate it, rachel. lots still to come. please stay with me. and yes, i can hear you screaming on twitter from here. i can hear you. stay with us.
1:55 am
♪ you know, i tried one of those bargain paper towels. but i had to use so many sheets per spill... the roll just disappeared. i knew i should've bought bounty. bounty is 2x more absorbent and strong when wet. just look how much longer bounty lasts versus one of those bargain brand towels. with bounty, the roll doesn't disappear and that's a good deal. bounty. the long lasting picker upper.
1:56 am
1:57 am
just about anywhere you use sugar, you can use splenda®... ...no calorie sweetener. splenda® lets you experience... ...the joy of sugar...
1:58 am
...without all the calories. think sugar, say splenda® while president obama was on stage today answering tough questions, back in washington today, it was chaos. strategic chaos, procedural chaos. one party erupting in a huge fight itself. people going out of the way to stop things they like and help things that they hate. it was weird today. birds of a feather not flocking together. it was a weird, weird political day. for example, that's nobody republicans hate more in the obama administration than, stay it with me now, eric holder. that said, by their own actions, republicans in congress have now apparently decided to keep eric holder on as attorney general indefinitely. even though he would like to leave that job.
1:59 am
tomorrow, there will be a vote on the woman who would replace eric holder as attorney general if the republicans would only let her. republicans and conservatives have spent the last two days lobbying furiously for republican senators to vote against that nomination, and there is no clear indication at this point that loretta lynch will tomorrow get enough votes to be confirmed when that vote happens tomorrow afternoon. it's not because of anything about her, but how much republicans hate the current attorney general. they hate eric holder so much that they are making sure that they keep eric holder as attorney general for the foreseeable future. it's really weird, right? but that is under way. and that strategy is going to bear its strategic fruit tomorrow afternoon. all eyes are on the homeland security department and whether or not they can come up with something to keep it from shutting down on friday. but in the midst of that big fight, tomorrow afternoon they're going to take that vote on loretta lynch and nobody
2:00 am
knows what is going to happen with that vote. total chaos. that does it for us tonight. good morning, right now on first look isis and america, arrests made. president obama gets tough with congress. >> instead of trying to hold hostage for the department on of homeland security which is so important for our national security fund that and let's get on with actually passing immigration reform. >> and back to winter's wrath with more southern snow, from texas to atlantic ocean and up through r.a. have a, and a massive pile up involving over 75 vehicles. and this, what could be the perfect coffee cup, one you

25 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on