tv Hardball With Chris Matthews MSNBC March 17, 2015 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
>> very interesting story there. you've been watching "the last word." you can find me on instagram or twitter. bibi in the fight of his life. let's play "hardball." ♪ goodenes, i'm steve car neki in for chris matthews tonight. the results are beginning to trickle in, xi polls that his center left are neck and neck, eel with about 27 seats in the can knesset. the question now is this, who will be tapped to form the next government? can they build a coalition with the smaller parties? up until today it looked as though the center level coalition was gaining ground
against netanyahu, but they threw his lots in with the and broke sharply with the united states, he aligned himself with the right here in the us and aggressively pushed to sink the administration's negotiations with iran. today in a last-minute hail mary that reeked of racial fearmongering he warned his supporters that, quote, arab voters are going to the polls in droves. what happens next in israel? and what does it mean? chief foreign correspondent andrea mitchell is at likud headquarters, netanyahu questioned quarters, he is now addressing his supporters. andrea, just go to the bottom-line questions here. netanyahu wanting to declare victory. can he form a government? will he get a chance to form a government? >> reporter: well, as you know, israeli politics is about as complicated as you get.
this is a policemenary election. according to the exit polls, it's a virtual tie, a dead heat, but there are more small parties that are natural partners of his hard-line stance, which he is repeating tonight in his speech in hebrew, of course, to his supporters here. it is increasingly likely that he will form the government. as close as the exit polls indicate than the president of israel, who is pretty much titular job. he gets to decide who he has, isaac herzog, the former socialist, who is the center-left candidate, who came in virtually tied in the exit polls, or netanyahu to form a government. whoever gets that first chance gets to start wheeling and dealing and cajole these smaller
parties. the party that came in third was this new coalition of israeli arabs, who had always been splintered, so they actually did produce a stronger vote, according to what indications we had. that was clearly what inspired netanyahu to do what had never before been done, from all of our reporting, came out, made a statement, the israeli judge set he couldn't go live, because it was election day, so he went on facebook saying they cannot shut us up this is a strong mandate, if he does form this government, that's huge implications also for the white house, because, as strong as he is, you can even understand in hebrew, he is absolutely determined not to permit a palestinian state. that has deadrock u.s. and israeli policy.
this is a big setback for the obama white house. steve? >> and andrea, on that pint, then, the relations, clearly the white house was hoping there would be a change in leadership in israel. if netanyahu is able to form a government, basically returned to power, what is that relationship going to be like between the obama white house? they're basically there for two years, and netanyahu? >> reporter: it would be absolutely -- part of the statement today, and we interviewed top likud officials from his party, he accused the u.s. of pouring foreign government into his -- foreign money into his opposition. so he accused the u.s. of trying to spike the election against him, and the likud official said it was the state department who did this through some of the their support for nongovernment organizations. this has not been proved, of course, but it's going to be a very tough road ahead for secretary kerry and for
president obama. >> thank you to nbc's andrea mitchell in tel aviv. you sigh the scenes there. that's benjamin netanyahu, essentially trying to declare victory over there, still an open question. the votes just being counted right now, exit polls show a very close race, but a lot of the smaller parties could give an opportunity to form a government, clearly a result that the obama administration was not hoping for. daniel levy is with the european council on foreign relations, he was a special adviser to the former israeli adviser, and gabe shimen is at the jewish policy center. they all join us to talk this over. daniel, let me start with you. i know it's a fluid situation. netanyahu is projecting the confidence of a winner right now. do you think it's likely that netanyahu is going to be the prime minister of israel? what does that mean for the
u.s./israeli relationship? >> the short answer, steve, is yes. as your correspondent andrea just outlined. the fact this is a tight result between the two major parties does not necessarily translate into an equal competition to form a government. the magic number for a majority is 61. the person with a much clearer path to 61, perhaps unstoppable, not guaranteed, but it's looking that way, is prime minister netanyahu. his path will likely be a narrow rightist coalition he may try to expand that. what does that mean? i think the cost -- let me explain what he achieved. netanyahu has pulled this off by cannibalizing his own allies on the right and far right. he basically got this magic number, which is equal or above
the number by taking votes from the far right. he did it at the cost of ending the pretense that netanyahu can be a man to work with on peace. he unmasked himself. they adto say that arafat was unmasked, but he was unmasked by declaring there would be no palestinian state, and the pretext of supporting a peace process, was just that. it was not sincere. that means on the palestinian issue prime minister netanyahu, of course the focus is at the white house, and he's at loggerheads with the white house, but he's also at loggerheads with the rest of the world. i don't think that means it's an end to the u.s. relationship, but i think it makes for a bumpy road. i think he'll have a tough time. in the last government, he could put a figure leaf or smiling face with his coalition allies on his own rejectionism. he won't be able to do that this time around.
>> as you're mentioning right there, the top israelis going to the poll, saying netanyahu posted a video, saying that right-wing rule is in danger and said arab voters are going to the polls in droves. he sought to clarify that a bit later, but those are some harsh words there, josh. that is the story here. in the last couple days, the story that 48 hours ago he was on verge of losing, he now appears in a much better position. he did this by going hard to the right. >> that's exactly right. i think daniel's summary, as i would have expected, is raely right on target. iably the key is he can probably form a collision. it will be very narrow. there's a question that one right-wing religious party, if they makes it into the knesset, that puts him in a better position. but this would be a very hard right government. andrea was saying this is tough
for the white house, but israel relies on the united states in a lot of different ways. i think -- i think if you look at a lot of the israeli press today after the results came out, it is hard to see where a government put together on these terms is going to last that long. this is a huge come from behind victory for netanyahu. no question about that. it leaves him in a vastly different position that people were thinking he would be in a couple days ago, but it's not a good position. it is a very thin majority, that it looks like he'll be able to put together, going back to daniel's point, in theory he could try to expand out from that and bring in some centrist parties, and at least my my math he has to wring in the kulanu party. that seems doable, but it's hard for me to see how he can build
much from there with the, you know, frankly racist appeals against the country's arab population is -- it's hard to get much worse than that, but the specific, the categorical denial he will ever entertain or allow a palestinian state, that's a bright red line he's been able to fuzz over before now. that puts him at logger dead heads with a lot of the other parties, very much at logger heads with the united states, with europe, so a big part of what went on though this campaign is moo israel is facing a diplomatic tsunami. that's coming in spades. >> the longer term implications, the terms he's won this things on, now swearing off the idea of a two-state solution, something that the international community has as a wide goal, he says not a goal. is there a risk of israel with
the netanyahu government continuing being marginalized with this relationship with the united states and on the world stage? >> first, thank for you having me, but let's put things in, this is a big win for israeli democracy. up do 30 women in the knesset, the best showing by an arab list ever. look around in the middle east, and what's going on in syria or in egypt or jordan, this is a big victory. when it comes to his priorities, the irony is even though he did tack hard right over the last five days in order to get more votes and it worked. the irony is that it make make it more possible for him to implement how he sees what he calls a two-state solution with caveats, because the far right that doesn't believe in a two-state solution is actually diminished. whether he chooses to go or attempt to go with a unit unity
government or he reiterates he support for two states like six years ago, the fact that the likud with the most -- or at least the exit polls has the most seats in almost 15 years actually encourages thor prospects. when it comes to iran, both bibi and herzog and the entire israeli people are actually united. they might disagree with how to get there and the tone, but the israeli people are totally united when it comes to iran policy and what to do. >> it's just after 1:00 a.m., you saw the scenes there, netanyahu still on the stage. thank you, though. coming up a tangled web of dysfunction has taken over capitol hill. it's insnared republicans. democrats, the president's pick to attorney general, is it any way to run go. and congressman aaron schock of illinois stepping down. questions about how he spent campaign and taxpayer cash. and more pressure on hillary clinton to turn over her e-mail
serving. is it hurting her politically? we have new numbers? a heated debate with the roundtable. that's later in the show. this is "hardball," the place for politics. ots take colour one way, and previously coloured hair another. new vidal sassoon salonist. first, brush roots then, blend through lengths. our most advanced system outside the salon. it's more than colour. it's a work of art. progressive insurance here and i'm a box who thrives on the unexpected. ha-ha! shall we dine? [ chuckle ] you wouldn't expect an insurance company to show you their rates and their competitors' rates but that's precisely what we do. going up! nope, coming down. and if you switch to progressive today you could save an average of over 500 bucks. stop it. so call me today at the number below. or is it above? dismount! oh, and he sticks the landing! ♪ nice! gr-reat!
a shot like that... calls for a post-game celebration. share what you love with who you love. kellogg's frosted flakes. they're gr-r-reat! the fbi has arrested a former mechanic with the air force for trying to join isis. he's identified at tyrod pew, and tried to travel to join the terrorist group. court to court documents. he tried to join 56 shortly being fired from his job in kuwait. he will appear in court in new york tomorrow. we'll be back after this.
has exploded into a spectacular mess of partisanship. the possible new attorney general and president obama. the fight now includes the white house, the presidential field, even hillary clinton. how is that possible? the senate was about to vote on the sex trafficking legislation, but then democrats noticed it contained a republican provision on abortion. democrats blamed republicans for sneaking that language into the bill. republicans blamed democrats for not reading the bill in its entirety. democrats are now refusing to allow a vote on the legislation, and republicans are refusing to take out the anti-abortion language. now senate majority leader mcconnell has tied the vote to the nomination of loretta lynch. the republicans are trying to derail so there you have it. the bill is expected to sail through the republican-controlled congress, has managed to ig need a fight -- the nominee for attorney general, and the president.
so what happens now. how do we untangle this met? jonathan allen is warble bureau chief with bloomberg news. we have a standoff, jonathan, democrats say naughty republicans, you snuck this language in there, we don't want it. republicans saying you want this new attorney general, you only will get it if you put this bill through with the abortion language. what's going to give here? >> if only "school house rock" had been so convoluted? this isn't how a bill is supposed to sit on capitol hill. ultimately i think democrats may have to yield on this. they have let the process play out so far without having read that bill, that they have now put republicans in a position to say the democrats are holding up a human sex trafficking bill over this abortion language, and basically hold up lynch. if the democrats want to get lynch, and they do, they may have to yield on this other provisions. otherwise they have to explain
why they're against the bill, and when you're in politics, explaining is losing. >> what is the tougher thing here? on the one hand you're looking at the first -- somebody -- loretta lynch would be the first african-american female attorney general. i imagine democrats would be making noise about the idea that republicans are blocking such a historic pick, but as jonathan says, they have to explain it's because they have attached language to the sex trafficking bill. how did they get into this mess? >> they got into it for exactly the reasons that jonathan was outlining there. i mean, one political, you know, trap after another got set and spring here, and there are actually we think enough republican votes to confirm should she actually get a confirmation vote. and i mean, she's been waiting
for that for nigh on 130 days now, and at some point that actually, democrats think, will come back to bite republicans, because they're holding up an african-american highly qualified nominee. >> well, yesterday hillary clinton went on a twitter tirade against republicans for all this mess, saying congressional trifecta against women today. blocking great nominee, first african-american woman a.g. two, playing with politics with trafficking victims and three, threat emergency women's health and rights. so jonathan, you're talk about the politics, democrats seem to think they had so much success in elections past with the -- you see hillary clinton stoking those themes right there, but it seems like republicans aren't as worried about the politics on this one, maybe. >> hillary clinton is in a bunker right now, and i think you would call this a diversionary tactic. she feels like she canup in on
something she has some standing. to really enunciate and try to get democrats behind her. talking about two weeks essentially. i think this is what's going on with her right now, just around effort to message the democrats. to the extend she can make it about an issue that is clear and ey, all the better. >> and who should democrats who are out there, who are mad about this abortion language that was inserted into the trafficking bill. if jonathan is right and this is something democrats have to ultimately swallow, who should democrats be mad at? who dropped the ball and let it get to this point? >> well, i mean certainly committee staffers down below the level of names most people know, should have read this more kleely, but -- >> who is the top democrat on the committee? >> well, you can go all the way above that, right? this has now become a final
between mcconnell and reid. this is now a power play that almost has nothing to do with the language specifically and the committee. this is now, you know, which one of us is going to be able to get more out of a hostage situation. >> harry reid going off republicans. here's some of what reid has to say. this -- republicans really on loretta lynch are out of excuses. this congress is barely two months old. yet this is just the latest on a growing list of examples proves republicans simply can't govern. >> so that theme, jonathan, that harry reid is pressing there, the idea that they've got full control, what they're looking for, and yet they're not delivering anything, is that likely to resonate with anybody?
>> well, sure, it's absolutely going to resonate with democrats, and they hope it would resonate with voters outside the party. filibustering at every opportunity, tripping them when they can, and then, you know, arguing the republicans can't govern. in this case, you know, the attack from harry reid is that the republicans can't govern. so this was amateur hour for the democrats hour. and i think this will going to come back to bite them. the nomination has little to do -- everything to do with their opposition to the president. >> i think the attorney general nominee is suffering from the president's actions, no question about it. >> doesn't congress have a right to say oh, no, mr. president, we understand how this system works. you are overreached here.
and we're not going to ratify, we're not going to approve somebody who's going to continue to promote these kind of unlawful activities. >> when asked if she would implement president obama's amnesty, she said absolutely, and she said she found the legal reasoning, quote, reasonable. >> scott walker going afflalo receipta lynch as well. failure to commit -- that even he said nearly two dozen times she is not fit to serve as the nation's attorney general. let me ask you about that argument that you're hearing from they have a difference on immigration. the courts are stepping in are reviewing this thing, but at a certain level here, what would republicans or any opposition party expect?
this is the president, this is his choice for his cabinet. is he going to put somebody in the cabinet that will blow up one of the his signature achievements? how could any party expect that? >> it's sort of ridiculous to say at the outset you're going to oppose her, because she wouldn't say bad things about the immigration policy, when she is being hired to carry out many of his policies, and many of which at the justice department have bearing on the future of immigration policy. republicans can construct other policy reasons to want to oppose her but to say they expected her to say -- to give a more critical answers on immigration was probably unrealistic. that being said, she conducted herself very well at her confirmation hearing, and she did get some republican support, at least rhetorical support at
the damages revelations about schock continued right up to the announcement, today politico reporting about tens of thousands he was reimbursed in private auto mileage, billed the federal government and his campaign for logging roughly 170,000 miles on his person car between january 2010 and july of 2014. however, when he sold that chevrolet tahoe in july of 2014, it had only 80,000 miles on the odometer, according to public records obtained by politico. documents, in other words, indicate he was reimbursed for 90,000 miles more than his car was ever driven. a schock spokesman saying in an effort to remove any questions and out of an abundance of caution, he has reimbursed all monies received for official mileage. david axelrod tweeted had the surprising announcement -- has anybody had a more near i don'tic rise.
for more on the story i'm joined by david weigel. thanks for joining us. we know the political damage from this. it's cost the guy his political career. we know there was an ethics investigation already launched. he was also asked a couple days, did he break any laws? his response was, i hope not. could he be in legal trouble here? >> well, one reason people resign in situations like this is so the ethics committee investigation goes away. other people who have resigned, people who have gotten into similar troubles, can basically wall away in every literal sense. i think that's basically over, and he won't leave much of an impact on the country or on that district. there were a lot of republicans clamoring to take that seat. the club for gow thought about challenging him in 2014, but couldn't come -- i'm sorry, couldn't overcome his money.
it was clear he was a goner in this congress, anyway. it was becoming an embarrassment to himself and the district. >> he had 435 members of the house, about you his public profile was a lot more prominent than the average member of congress. one of the reasons we're talking about this so much, all over mall zig consequence, instagram, i always thought of him as the republican version of anthony weiner, a show horse, not a workhorse. is there a lot of short of private happiness on capitol hill among his colleagues? >> so this happened right as they were leaving a vote, and i couldn't talk to many. there was a bit of sorrow that somebody who is frankly a good fund-raiser and okay ambassador to young voters was -- he was supposed to be at south by southwest two days ago on a panel about millennials. he had the handsome face of youth outreach, but that was over. he kept basically insulting
everyone he worked with. when he was confronted by abc news, he said i'm not a crusty old white guy, like a lot of hess colleagues in congress. when politico confronted him, politico, owned this story left and right, confronted him in peoria, he said if you look at any member of the congress -- i'm paraphrasing -- documents, you would find something. he basically scrambled and kind of arrogantly dug his own grave as the story was being investigated. >> he's also somebody who i think his political career started when he was 18 or 19, running for the school board out there. he was 11, 12 years old looking in the mirror delivering his state of the union address. now he's in his mid 30s. mark sanford can go through that humiliation, still serve. david vitter can survive a scandal. eliot spitzer ran for office. he didn't win, but did run. is there a future for him? >> the difference -- mark
sanford did approach a comeback with humility. i think he still does more town has per capita on average than most members of congress. he's very aware of what he cost people. he also had a constituency, because he was an aggressively conservative governor, who thought the obama administration -- schock never built a constituency apart from appearing on television or panels. there won't be much appetite for him to return, though the whole attention reminds me of michael kinsley say the scandal is not what's legal -- he will have ruined his career over stupid spending, stuff that no other member of congress could have done. but this was doorstepped and investigated by reporters, you know rightly -- i'm glad he was caught for this, but we're going back to a normalcy in washington with a replacement for schock,
where far more money is being wasted on official projects. this guy was just a lightweight and no one is really going to some is him. >> we'll see who gets the "downton abbey" office. new polls shows the flap may be hurting her politically. plus surprise retirement of a young nfl star, who thinks that playing football may be hazardous to his health. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics.
if you want to succeed in business, mistakes are a luxury you can't afford. that's why i recommend fast reliable comcast business internet. they know what businesses need. and there's a no-mistake guarantee. if you don't like it, you have thirty days to call and get your money back. with comcast business internet you literally can't mook a mistick. i meant to say that.
switch today and get the no mistake guarantee. comcast business. built for business. welcome back to "hardball." house speaker john boehner today called on former secretary of state hillary clinton to hand over her private e-mail server to a third party as part of the house select committee's selection of benghazi. here's boehner. >> the american people deserve all the facts about what happened in benghazi.
that's why it's so important for secretary clinton to turn over her personal server to a neutral third party. that is the fairest way to make sure we have all the documents that belong to the public and ultimately all the facts. >> hours later the state department said they have no record that secretary clinton signed a form delaying she had left her officials documents with the department upon her exit. though there's no record of her predecessors doing so, either. all this comes as a new cnn research poll finds a narrow majority of americans say they believe hillary clinton did something wrong by using a personal e-mail address on a home server. likewise 51% say clinton has not done enough to explain why she used the system. 44% of americans now view hillary clinton unfavorably, a jump of six points sing the poll was taken. it's also the highest unfavorable rating she has
received since the end of her presidential run after the long and contentious campaign against barack obama. i'm joined by the roundtable. joe, jonathan capehart and liz winstead. jonathan, these poll numbers, she's back to where she is was at the end of the only losing campaign in the national stage. this is having an effect. >> it is having an effect. don't those poll numbers reflect where the american people are on the clinton? either bill clinton or hillary clinton on fill in the blank -- fill in the blank issue? so i think the problem that the secretary has is that the 51% thinks that she's done something wrong, thinks she has questions to answer, and quite frankly she does. you know, speaker boehner calling on her to hand over the server to the benghazi house
committee, doing the umpteenth investigation unnecessarily politicizes something. >> in your mind, what are the question she has to answer. >> one, why do you have a -- why do you have a private server? two, are we -- can you please assure everyone that all of the documents that are on it that pertain to your time as secretary of state are off that private server? i think what speaker boehner has done to politicize this is to attach it to the house benghazi committee. there have been so many investigations that have shown time and time again that nothing -- none of the conspiracy theories are true. >> it's reminiscent of the 1990s and whitewater. >> the committee cleared her, controlled by republicans, by the way. >> how can she put the e-mail question to rest then?
what came out of that press conference was basically, look, i had all of these on my own server, i handed over what i think are the public's business, and -- >> if i were cynical, she doesn't need to care about this. the data out of the poll you were quoting shows she has a very strong majority that wants her to be president. 57% answered that poll saying we would be produce if hillary clinton were president. >> the concern i would think for the clintons would be look how high she was riding a few months ago, still out a year -- and just watch the negative number jump. >> you know very well that there are tides, ebbs and flowing. she's have higher negatives at some point. she was bound to have a higher negative eventually after leaving the state department. no we that was going to start to happen. that's what happens when anyone starts to run for president. if i were the republicans, i
would have to ask myself, does it make sense to keep doing the same thing to hillary clinton that we have done for 20 years now? without success. remember whitewater. do you remember whitewater? they spent $70 million investigating whitewater. house committee, senate committee, not just ken starr, and ken starr. what happened to all of this em? ken starr lost his opportunity to be on the supreme court and disgraced. al demato lost his seat. lots of the impeachment committee members lost their seats, including the speaker of the house. >> so, look -- >> clinton was elected to the u.s. senate and became secretary of state. >> it was bill clinton ultimately who survived in 1990s. right now we're talking about hillary clinton. she's not won a national election yet. she just watched her numbers jump, is there something she should be worried about?
>> first of all, i think americans look at not necessarily we think hillary clinton did something wrong, it's i would never get away with that. i think if you really were to analyze that poll, 51% of the people says how come she is gets away with that? that's what i think they believe. second, i think when you look at how do you keep extending the benghazi hearings in time immemoriam, what you do is parse out the part of the e-mail story that can live on and on and on. that's, say, let's demand the server. that means we get to hear wild speculation over and over and over again to perpetuate all kinds of stuff that's probably not true that will become fact. it's really not about whether -- people win with the clintons, the extreme right, they can raise a lot of money off bashing hillary, and hillary wins being bashed on. it's a win/win.
>> james carville has a of clintons' use, on sunday it appeared -- >> you wonder why the public is not following this? because they know what it is. it was something that she did, it was legal, i suspect she didn't want louis gopper rifling through her e-mails, which seems to me to be a reasonable position for someone to take. so it appears -- just like everything else before it, it amounts to to a lot of people flapping their jaws about nothing. >> at her press conference, she was saying this was a matter of convenience. this is carville, saying they premedicated, but keeping -- he's saying republicans -- >> it's not just republicans, but the media too. >> the word he said was "i suspect" i think the key thing in that statement was that he suspects that she didn't want
louis gopper rifling through her private e-mail. why choose louis gopper? >> that's exactly what i think. >> and private e-mails, something that the everyday american can understand. creeps in your mail. >> do you want some creepy guy rifling through your private e-mail? >> she's not just thinking about him. he's an easy villain. he's also talking about the press. she's also talking about reporters that might have questions. >> steve, steve, reporters, our colleagues got every clinton scandal wrong for ten years, completely wrong. the headline on the front page of "new york times," wrong. every aspect of whitewater wrong. >> which headline? >> the first one about whitewater. >> you're talking about whitewater. >> but the first story in the times about the e-mail was also wrong, in terms of she violated the law, they got the law wrong. this has happened to them over and over again. so the fact that they have less
than 100% confidence in the washington press corps? i'm sorry, that's not unreasonable. >> was she is being too cute here in reserving all of this to her personal server. >> was colin powell? he did the same thing. >> what did the democrats say when karl rove was using the rnc server? what does -- now -- >> what could the rnc say now? >> but why now? is it okay because -- the standard used to be -- >> i didn't say it was okay. >> so why fall back on that. >> well, first of all, there's nothing like what colin powell did. what colin powell did was say, i'm going to convert everybody to e-mail, i'm going to use my personal e-mail, and then when the state department asks him, where are yew e-mails, secretary powell? he said, i don't know, they're all gone. no one cared -- >> it was good unusual for the bush administration -- >> why don't you care about that? why don't you care about the fact. >> who says i didn't care, so the clintons --
>> wait a sect. >> they have a private e-mail server. you're asking me why i didn't care -- >> you didn't know ten years ago he would you say going to throw away. very little coverage of that ten years ago. the roundtable is staying with us. this is "hardball," the place for politics. so why pause to take a pill? and why stop what you're doing to find a bathroom? with cialis for daily use, you don't have to plan around either. it's the only daily tablet approved to treat erectile dysfunction so you can be ready anytime the moment is right. plus cialis treats the frustrating urinary symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently, day or night. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache.
to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision or any symptoms of an allergic reaction stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. why pause the moment? ask your doctor about cialis for daily use. for a free 30-tablet trial go to cialis.com boy: once upon a time, there was a nice house that lived with a family. one day, it started to rain and rain. water got inside and ruined everybody's everythings. the house thought she let the family down. but the family just didn't think a flood could ever happen. the reality is floods do happen. protect what matters. call the number on your screen or visit the website to learn more. msnbc has learned that rand paul, the kentucky senator, will enter the presidential race next
what do you make -- we've heard that a lot from the clinton defenders, certainly. >> i just feel, not to pile on my friend joe, but i do feel like -- i just want politicians to have to answer to foia requests. when we have this thing where everybody is using their private e-mail, i don't think -- i don't think -- it's not -- i don't feel comfortable trying to have any kind of moral superiority that i may want to vote for or support, i just don't like it. >> i've said and i've written -- >> stop it, joe! stop your yelling! >> i've said she would be better off, meaning secretary clinton and the public, had she used the dot-gov e-mail. >> that's the thing that drives me nuts, though, is she won't just come out and says that. it was just a matter of convenience, and in mindsight -- >> it has to be some hindsight now.
>> but a guy like carville is saying -- >> she doesn't, and that's -- >> but see, that's what i think people suspect, it wasn't an innocent thing from the beginning, where i don't want two devices, here's what you don't know. >> forget forget about the ear part of what she said, if anyone e-mailed her from the office, she responded to them on their dot-gov e-mail address so that would be captured. >> that's such -- >> what are you going to say, steve? >> what i'm going to say is she is then relying -- what she's saying is look, i wanted to be in compliance with the rules of this the administration not by doing it on my own, but by rerelying on other people to do it. >> this is what we are talking about during the break this is the other part of what i wanted to say. that is, it would have been far better, and liz said, and i think you made a good suggestion
it would have been better if secretary clinton had done this, say -- you know what? i think that the house speaker and the minority leader nancy pelosi should get together and recommend a special committee, then we'll have someone from the national archives come in and a lawyer from our team, from my team to go over -- i'll give you the server. all of you sit down and look in an era, a feeling of transparency, but also a bit of confidentiality. we are talking about like work e-mails and personal e-mails. that ultimately is what has to happen for the sake of history. >> sure, sure. >> there has to be an arbiter. >> that's why i -- >> there needs sob somebody else making the call. >> i agree. that's where speaker boehner made a mistake, by tying it to the house committee on benghazi. if he had just left them out and said we would like this, and an independent panel.
i know -- >> that wasn't a mistake. >> i know. >> that's what they do. >> if we're talking about history, that's what should have been done. >> we can't have a 1746 minute gap for all of eternity. >> everybody puts in the stuff that makes them look good, and that's not what makes history. >> you're fired up, sir. >> that's right. we'll be right back right after this. 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.
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. switch now and get the fastest wifi everywhere. comcast business. built for business. all right.
joining us on "hardball" tomorrow for all the latest developments from israel. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. tonight on "all in" polls close in israel and netanyahu is already declaring victory. what does that mean for israel's relationship with u.s.? and is the rest of the world? then a shocking premature ending to a promising career. >> i just don't want to get in a situation where i'm negotiating my health for money. plus a city in revolt against big oil. the big-name potential candidate on the sidelines. and the new gimmick from starbucks. >> what if we were to write race together on every starbucks cup. "all in" starts right now.