tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC March 20, 2015 1:00am-2:01am PDT
and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. can you hear that in the distance? can you hear your uncle who listens to talk radio all day and reads from old net daily and since you the e-mails and thinks president obama is a muslim but can't spell it? can you hear your uncle who just listened to that segment and was like, wait a minute, they didn't disprove the nuclear weapon in charleston thing? can you hear in the distance your beloved uncle getting really, really upset about hillary clinton right now? if you sense the rising blood pressure upon your uncle and the a thousand right-wing conspiracists right now, it's not just because of the last segment on that show. it's because hillary clinton just said something today that they all knew she has always believed. and that she has been trying to impose on this great nation. they knew it.
they called it ahead of time. but she finally admitted it out loud today. oh, my god. >> i have decided we really need camps for adults. [ laughter ] >> camps for adults! see? the fema concentration camps, the communist, fascist, muslim, marxist, black helicopter, one-world plot to lock everybody up in fema concentration camps in this country, turns out we had a little bit of it wrong. it's not going to happen under the communist dictator "nobama," it's going to happen on the dictator hillary clinton. i don't know if the freak-out has officially started already. but you can't say we really need camps for adults in this country. you can't say that as a democratic politician anymore without the right losing their minds for approximately a decade.
but that is what hillary clinton said today. and this is what she meant by it. >> i have decided we really need camps for adults. [ laughter ] and we need the kind of camps that you all run. i mean, really, where, you know, none of the serious stuff, none of the, you know, life-challenge stuff, more fun. i think we have a huge fun deficit in america. [ applause ] and we need to figure out how to fill that fun deficit, certainly for our kids, but also for the rest of us. >> the fun deficit. that of the hillary clinton today speaking in atlantic city before an organization that runs summer camps for kids. everybody saying this will probably be her final paid speech as a non-candidate before she announces she's running for president. but in this speech today, she
did talk about there being a deficit of fun in this country. she said we all need to have more fun, kids and adults alike, and she made a case that we need to have less of a political divide in our personal lives. you need to be able to call and talk reasonably with your beloved uncle who sent you the all-caps e-mail about muslims. hillary clinton made that point in an original way today, again, using this nefarious concentration camp theme of summer camps. >> we've become in so many ways a country that has slowly but surely figured out how to get along with more people from more backgrounds, but there's still differences that we need to get over, much less, racist, sexist, homophobic, all of those things. but we don't want to spend time with anybody who we disagree with politically. i mean, that is just too stressful.
so, you know, maybe mix it up a little bit. you can have the red cabin, the blue cabin, have a come-together and actually listen to each other. wouldn't that be a novel idea? [ applause ] and sort of create this much more open dialogue opportunity, which i would like to see more of. >> hillary clinton speaking this afternoon in atlantic city. and again, what is thought to probably be her last paid speech before she becomes an official candidate for president. there's all this non-sense noise in the political press today about how hillary clinton's numbers are softening among democratic voters. but she mysteriously is still in the lead to win the democratic nomination. yeah, duh. there isn't actually a race to win the democratic presidential nomination right now. saying she's in the lead in that
race is like saying hawaii is also in the lead to win the title for best state that is also a pacific island. it's the only one. yes, she's winning. it's the wrong question to be asking. on the republican side, though, there is definitely a real race, a race that is getting more interesting by the day. but one in which some surprising candidates are also having what appear to be some growing pains, as they get closer to actually declaring they're candidates and they have to build up their presidential campaign operations. hillary clinton will likely be the first female presidential nominee of either major political party. but the last time around, in 2012, for the first time, the republican party had up there on its debate stages and for a time up in the top tier of presidential candidates their own first female presidential contender, michele bachmann, the minnesota congresswoman. it's hard to think of her as a national contender for the presidency, but she was in 2012,
particularly in all important iowa. she was a real contender for the presidency. michele bachmann won the straw poll in iowa. republicans had this female contender to win the caucuses. rick santorum, who was competing for the same voters as michele bachmann, rick santorum hired a guy in iowa named jamie johnson to work on his campaign in that state. soon after that hire was announced, "the des moines register" got hold of an e-mail jamie johnson had once sent in which he questioned whether it could really be god's will to have a woman rule the institution of state? mr. johnson basically said it would be against god's will for a woman to be president. and if a woman were elected president, it would put the lives of american children in danger. when that happened in 2012, the michele bachmann campaign were furious.
they said rick santorum was using a sexist strategy against her in iowa. they said, does he want all the female members of congress to step down and all the female supreme court justices to step down and all the female governors across the country to step down? the website talking points dug that all up again from the 2012 campaign, because that same guy, the guy questioning whether it might be god's will, really, that woman will be allowed to hold political office that, same guy was just hired this year. he was hired again in iowa to run rick perry's presidential pack. still republican women are not likely to be psyched about rick perry hiring that guy who questions whether or not god will allow a woman president. so that's happening in the rick perry camp. you think he would know better. and that comes today after two days of another iowa drama from
another presidential campaign that you think would know better. wisconsin governor scott walker's campaign announced they had hired a new staffer for their national efforts. within hours of making that announcement about their new hire, they had fired her. i mean, she had resigned, after apparently they didn't notice a long string of tweets that she had made over the years, calling iowa republicans embarrassing and saying iowa should be removed from its front-runner status in the presidential nominating process in part because people from iowa grow up so dependent on the government and the rest of the country doesn't understand that about iowa. her arguments were not non-sense cal, not particularly profane. they had been expressed completely in public, so the scott walker outfit could have read her public tweets before they decided to hire her. it would not be that big a deal in terms of a background check. but the scott walker's profile in political courage was not
reading up on her background before they hired her, hiring her, announcing they hired her, shocked by people being shocked and angry they hired her and then within hours of having here hired, having her resign from the new job. today scott walker was in south carolina, for two full days of events, today and tomorrow, which is handy for him politically, because what's going on for him at home right now in wisconsin is a slew of terrible headlines. first of all, there's the matter of former staffers going to prison. one of the scandals that trails behind scott walker as he makes this run for the presidency is this sprawling investigation into people who were working for him as public employees, also doing scott walker campaign business while they were working on the public dime. that investigation into scott walker's political past has resulted in six staffers and
associates of scott walker being convicted, including his deputy chief of staff, she has been sentenced to six months in prison for this case, for illegally working for scott walker on the taxpayers' dime. today in wisconsin, they rejected her last appeal, which means she's being told to report to prison to start serving her six months. unless she can convince the only other court in the land that still has jurisdiction, to intervene. so scott walker's former deputy chief of staff is going to prison very soon or will take her case to the united states supreme court. so that was one set of headlines for scott walker at home today. not good news. the other set of headlines for him today was about the terrible jobs record he's leaving behind in wisconsin. scott walker, like most presidential candidates is trying to run on his economic record, as a jobs, jobs, jobs candidate. before today, the problem for
him was his current ranking in terms of job creation as governor of wisconsin. wisconsin ranked 31st in the nation out of 50, in terms of jobs created heading into today. today the blaring headline in wisconsin is that wisconsin has dropped in job creation. they had been 31st in the nation, now 38th in the nation, tied for last place among similar states in the midwest. and the national comparison is particularly stark. in the last 12 months, the national job creation rate has been double what the job creation rate has been in wisconsin. so under scott walker, wisconsin is doing badly, compared to the rest of country. wisconsin is even doing badly compared to its similar states in its neighborhood of the country. so there was scott walker today, campaigning for president in south carolina, trying to make a pitch for his economic record as wisconsin's record, when you have a bad economic record and you're trying to run on that
record, you have to get very specific in order to find something to brag about. the very specific pitch scott walker is making is that the thing he did in wisconsin, which would make him a good president, the thing he did in wisconsin, which shows you what he could do for the country, is that in wisconsin, he destroyed union rights. that's his pitch for running for president, that he destroyed union rights in wisconsin. and he did. in 2011, scott walker became nationally famous when he destroyed union rights for public employees in the state that gave birth to union rights in this country. that gave scott walker a national profile, in part because hundreds of thousands of people in wisconsin protested against what he was doing. those protests against what scott walker did were the largest demonstrations in the history of the state of wisconsin. now, this year, as he's running for president, scott walker and the republican legislature in wisconsin have basically finished the job. what they took apart in 2011, were union rights for public employees, what they took away
this year, were union rights for everybody else in wisconsin. that's really the central case that scott walker is making to be president. it's so central to his campaign for the presidency, he tries to attach it to everything. everything. even things he really should not try to attach it to. >> should you become commander in chief, how would you deal with threats such as isis? >> well, you know, the interesting thing, sometimes people in the media don't understand that as a governor, i get a threat assessment from the fbi. and without divulging confidential information, i can tell you i've been concerned about that threat abroad and here on american soil. i want a commander in chief who will do everything in their power to ensure that the threat from islamic terrorists do not wash up on american soil. we will have someone who leads and send a message that we'll
protect american soil but do not take this upon freedom-loving people anywhere else in the world. if i can take on 100,000 protesters, i can do the same across the world. >> protesters? governor scott walker of wisconsin, claiming at cpac recently that he has the know-how to fight isis because look what he did to the residents of wisconsin, and their terrible, blood-curdling freedom of speech. >> you're not actually comparing isis terrorists to the protesters of wisconsin, right? >> no. not that protesters are equivalent to terrorists? >> not boy a landslide out there. >> not by a land mine or a landslide or by a grand canyon, whatever.
this is, to a fault, to an awkward fault, the central and at times only focus of scott walker's run for the presidency, but he's doing pretty well with it so far. the latest polls on the republican side, where there's a real contest for the nomination is that scott walker's tied for first place with jeb bush. jeb bush with a lot more money and name recognition. so there's a question now as to whether or not scott walker's platform, his all union-busting all the time platform as a top tier republican presidential candidate, there's a question now as to whether that might create sort of an ambient ripple effect in politics more broadly. what does that do to union politics in the country if one of the top-tier candidate is running with that as his platform? that's a salient question because president obama is about to do something he never does. this is the entire list of vetoes that president obama has issued in his time as president. the first one was something that almost was a typo in the
legislative process, something got done backwards in terms of the timing. he had to veto something to clear up the legislative calendar. it made no news. it's crossing a t or dotting an i. the other related to the way mortgage documents are signed. but that bill, it was a non-controversial detail. a technical matter, not a big deal. it did not make news. those were his first two vetoes as president. those were the only vetoes of his first term in office. but since republicans took control in congress, now president obama is vetoing the big stuff. keystone pipeline, the highest possible profile, president obama vetoed. republicans tried to override that veto. their efforts failed. and now as of today, the white house is looking down the barrel of president obama's next veto. it is a bill to change the rules
around union elections. now, usually this is the sort of issue at the federal level that would be closer on the controversy number line to the bill about like the way mortgages are signed. than it would to keystone. in terms of how controversial it is. it's much more toward the not make news kind of bill, than it is towards the really controversial stuff. but right now, with one of the major republican presidential contenders basing his appeal on destroying union rights, does that change the politics around this? we have to wait and see. the bill passed the senate earlier this month. it passed the u.s. house today. that means it's headed to president obama's desk. he promises he's going to veto it. how is that is going to land, what political ripples that's going to have, how much light and heat there's going to be on this, scott walker may be key to that. stay tuned.
something to keep an eye on with the negotiations with iran. you might have seen a flurry of leaks today about what might be going on with the iran deal. these are just leaks. until we see a draft of the deal, we don't know what's in the deal. but one thing to watch in the news story. until now, we've seen negotiations led by secretary of state john kerry. that makes sense, he's our nation's top diplomat. but these are not just negotiations about any old diplomatic thing. they're negotiations about nuclear energy, and nuclear material and nuclear weapons. and so now one of the ways you can tell this deal might be getting to the nitty gritty, all of a sudden we're not just seeing john kerry leading things for the u.s., now, who is that guy on the left? now we're seeing the only man in u.s. government with hair better than john kerry's hair, also involved at the top level, our energy secretary who is a nuclear physicist, ernest moniz. he and the iranian nuclear physicist, ali salehi, are involved in the talks which, if nothing else, means that these
congress got a new caucus today. for the first time, congress as of today has a caucus of post 9/11 veterans. 26 veterans of the wars in iraq and afghanistan are now serving in congress. that's enough of them that they have now formed their own group. a bipartisan group headed up by tulsi gabbard, a democrat of hawaii, and scott perry, a republican from pennsylvania. that's gratuitous news for our
current generation of veterans in terms of getting their issues heard. but also when it comes to war and peace and involving the u.s. military, it's helpful to have people who have been there, helping us make more informed choices about this as a country. especially when it's less than 1% of our population who has been serving in our most recent and giantly long wars. that said, the fact that we have a new generation of vets in congress to form this new caucus, doesn't mean there's been an outbreak of courage in dealing with what's on their plate right now against isis in iraq and syria. for example, the house armed services committee held a hearing, it was called specifically to discuss the military budget and that fight against isis. the president's request for congress to authorize this
military force that we've been using for eight months now against isis, that was the title of the hearing. we are going to talk at this hearing about voting to authorize the fight against isis. even though that was the title of the hearing, they never really got around to that part of it. they talked about lots of other stuff. but barely even mentioned authorizing the fight against isis. the fact that congress is afraid to talk about that fight doesn't mean that that fight isn't happening. in the midst of iraqi troops fighting this large offensive against isis in tikrit, now iraqi planes are reportedly dropping hundreds of thousands of leaflets over mosul, promising that the fight against isis is moving to mosul next, promising iraqi residents in that isis-occupied city, that their liberation is coming. that huge fight is coming. the u.s. military is bombing isis targets in iraq and syria on an ongoing basis. so the fight against isis is
only going to get more high profile, and the strategic decisions are only going to get harder for the u.s. military, and we're in the eighth month of this incredibly complex fraught military campaign against isis with this coalition of frenemies and congress has yet to weigh in. and the belt way common wisdom now is that they just won't ever weigh in on this. meanwhile, there's this other thing. this past week, britain, in this elaborate ceremony, commemorated the end of the uk's long involvement in the war in afghanistan. they commemorated the end of their part in the war with a service at st. paul's cathedral. queen elizabeth herself joined britain's top brass to mark the end of that country's war in afghanistan.
meanwhile, very quietly here in this country, one of the things that has happened since ash carter was confirmed as our new defense secretary and that we have apparently stopped planning to end our war in afghanistan. the administration is no longer planning to cut down the number of troops in afghanistan by the end of this year, as we've been hearing for years they would. late last night reuters said u.s. likely to have bases remain open. whether or not you think it's a good idea, it deserves some debate and congress making a decision about it. maybe that could be the first job for the post 9/11 veterans caucus, that we talk about that stuff and maybe someday take a vote on it. it's good news this post 9/11 caucus is being formed. more power to them.
joining us now is congresswoman and iraq war veteran tulsi gabbard of hawaii. congresswoman gabbert, thank you very much for being with us. >> thanks, rachel. aloha. >> i want there to be more political courage in congress on debating and even voting on what we're doing in terms of the use of military force in afghanistan, in the fight against isis, everywhere we're thinking about doing it. do you think that veterans -- iraq and afghanistan veterans, the new folks in your caucus, feel that way too? >> i can tell you that those who have served in this post 9/11 conflict, whether in iraq or afghanistan, have a different perspective, and obviously it comes from our first-hand experience in being able to ask tough questions, not in a partisan way, but in a way that is informed by our experience and the experience of our brothers and sisters in uniform who are still being deployed and
who are still serving overseas. we come out on different sides of these issues of when and where our troops should be serving in combat, about what our strategy must be to defeat our enemies, but the veterans who are part of this caucus, are asking these questions, not with partisan blinds on, but actually trying to see what's in the best interest of our country. >> i feel like the thing that i have seen in terms of veterans advocacy since 9/11, groups like iraq and afghanistan veterans of america, have been so supportive of the creation of this new caucus, i feel like they have been able to cut through. our current generation of veterans have been able to cut through partisan non-sense and get stuff done, when it's for veterans, when it's about the way that veterans are treated and veterans concerns. i guess i'm wondering if you feel like cutting through the partisan stuff and being more constructive can apply to other
issues your caucus might want to work on? >> i think it can and it does. when we go forward, serving in the military, whatever branch of service it is, i know for myself, this is a continuation of my service to my country, serving as a member of congress, and carrying the perspective of the incredibly high cost of war that i saw when i was deployed to iraq in a medical unit in 2005 to the work that's happening here, not only on issues related to veterans but issues that are related to national security, to foreign policy, to how we can best serve the people in the united states here at home. a lot of the grayness and the muck is easily weighted through because i bring this mission first, this service-mission first perspective to what i do and i see that same value in my colleagues who have also served. >> do you think that the
congress will eventually vote on an authorization to use military force against isis as this military operation continues now for more than half a year? there hasn't been much serious debate let alone a movement toward a vote. do you think there will be one? >> i honestly don't know. i can't tell you there will or there won't. there are a few reasons why. we're seeing a lot of concerns raised because before you can have a true debate on authorization to use military force, i think the first thing that needs to happen is a recognition of an overall strategy of which this authorization needs to be a part of. so when i look at this proposal that the president has brought before congress, i look at it within the prism of our 2002 authorization, that caused the united states to invade iraq in the first place. i look how 12 years later, after spending over a trillion dollars and thousands of american lives and iraqi lives, we're still there and this authorization is
what allowed that to occur and we're seeing what happens when there's not a clear strategy in place. we're seeing a continuation now by this administration of the failed bush policy of propping up this central iraqi government in baghdad, which is oppressing the sunni people, which has created the oxygen for isis to exist in iraq in a way that continues to grow in strength. so it's most important for us to learn from these lessons in the past, to make sure that there's an overall strategy of which the military is obviously a huge component, but alongside that, there's needs to be a political strategy to deal with the sectarian divide that continues to exist in iraq, where you have the shia militias and the iranian forces on the ground persecuting these sunni tribes with no plan, for example in tikrit, no plan for what happens next, for the sunnis to be
empowered to take charge over their own communities and their own towns, to prevent groups like isis from coming right back in and taking advantage of the oppressive environment that has caused them to be there in the first place. >> tulsi gabbard, thank you for your time tonight and again, congratulations on launching this new post 9/11 veterans caucus. i think it's a really big deal for our politics. >> thank you very much, rachel. i will say that more often than anybody else in politics, when you talk to veterans, my experience is, when you talk to veterans, they are the ones who talk about the need to have a political strategy alongside a military strategy. non-veterans are much happier to talk about the military. people in the military talk about the need for that having to be integrated with politics. fascinating. we'll be right back. stay with us. mr. mucus: to work, with you. it's taco tuesday. man: you're not coming. i took mucinex to help get rid of my mucusy congestion. i'm good all day. [announcer:] mucinex keeps working. not 4, not 6 but 12 hours. let's end this
>> are you protesting me? >> no, i'm not. i'm here to have you pick some prizes for our contestants for the friday night -- >> okay, let's start with the big one. >> this is -- these are from the show from 2013, during the whole government shutdown. this is like your way of illustrating the changing -- -- the changing positions from the various constituencies, like at one point, house leadership is don't raise the debt ceiling and then suddenly -- >> just raise it for a few days. >> there's a million of these signs and they're all in the little closet where we put the interns. [ laughter ]
>> i think they would be happier if we got rid of a large number -- >> of many more than this. >> okay, this is -- >> a moon pie hat. >> it's a moon pie hat? you can feel free to put that on your head. >> i'm not running for president. [ laughter ] >> and there's some very dusty -- >> oh, those are mine. where were they? >> i just found them in a drawer. >> these are my eye mean, they have to be, because they have these weird tans that i totally remember. these were on my desk at my air america radio office. back in the days when there was liberal radio. >> those are really valuable. >> no, they're not really valuable. they're really funky. and they're hands are cute, they look like ducks. >> so maybe a real fan of yours would probably want that the most. >> this would be nice to go to the interns. >> yes. >> should we give people a choice? >> yes, let's give them a choice.
hey, you forgot the milk! that's lactaid®. right. 100% real milk just without the lactose. so you can drink all you want... ...with no discomfort? exactly. here, try some... mmm, it is real milk. see? delicious. hoof bump! oh. right here girl, boom! lactaid®. 100% real milk. no discomfort. and for a tasty snack that's 100% real dairy try lactaid® cottage cheese.
this was a senate hearing today featuring the man of the hour in washington, the director of the secret service. his agency has been under fire for more than a week now over more allegations of wrong-doing by his agents. the director of the secret service, joseph clancy, was called to testify today before a senate sub committee. going to be on the hot seat in the senate about all the allegations swirling around his agency. and this was what he met with when he showed up. look. empty chair, empty chair, empty chair, empty chair. two senators, empty chair, empty chair, empty -- yeah, your tax dollars at work. this hearing happened around 2:00 this afternoon. so maybe it was a late lunch for everybody else. don't know. this was the second time the secret service director has faced questioning from congress this week. he also appeared at a house hearing on tuesday. but ahead of today's testimony, the secret service had tell graphed that this was going to be dramatic, that director clancy was going to be pushing back on a lot of the recent
reporting out there about his agency and its misdeeds. specifically he'd be pushing back on the initial reporting about an incident that took place at the white house on march 4, earlier this month. the allegations that a pair of senior secret service agents drove their government vehicle onto the white house grounds and hit a temporary barrier after a night of drinking at a nearby washington, d.c. bar. those initial reports, from "the washington post," described the secret service vehicle as, quote, running through security tape before hitting the barricades. "the new york times" reported that the car ran through the tape and crashed into the barricade. secret service director made it a point during his testimony today to say that he wanted everybody to know that there was no crashing. >> based on the footage, previous reports of a crash are inaccurate. there was no crash. the video shows a vehicle entering a white house complex at a speed of approximately 1 to
2 miles per hour and pushing aside a plastic barrel. there was no damage to the vehicle. >> there was no crash. okay? asked whether or not the secret service agents in their slow-speed, we're not going to call it a crash, the question as to whether or not they were drunk, whether they had been out drinking in a bar, or whether officers on scene were ordered not to arrest them and breathalize them, even though they wanted to, as to the issue of why this incident wasn't reported to the secret service director until five days after it happened, as for all of those questions, we don't have answers to that. he said he's waiting for the full report of an inspector general investigation before speaking on those matters. he also said, quote, our mission is too important for this to happen. it undermines my leadership, and i won't stand for it. i should also say for the record, that we reached out today to the appropriations committee in the senate to find out where they all were, why the
heck nobody showed up today for that hearing. the committee did not exactly know. i mean, i suppose it's possible the other senators might have had other business to attend to today. and the guy in charge of protecting the safety of the president of the united states didn't make the cut, that's possible, or maybe long lunch. i don't know. but they weren't there.
based on the footage, previous reports of a crash are inaccurate. there was no crash. the video showed the vehicle entering the white house complex at a speed of 1 to 2 miles per hour. and pushing aside a plastic barrel. there was no damage to the vehicle. secret service director joseph clancy testifying before the senate today, a sparsely attended senate hearing, in the midst of what has been an intense week of public attention for the secret service. joining us now, staff reporter
for "the washington post," who has taken the lead about recent problems at the secret service. thanks so much for being here. >> you bet. >> so, i want to ask your response to the secret service director today, essentially pushing back on the reporting about what happened at the white house a couple of weeks ago. to my ear, he's basically saying that this is being made out to be more than it really was. what's your reaction to that? >> i understand why the director is, you know, pushing back in some respects. he wants to make clear that this incident, upon review of the partial tape they have available, doesn't look like a really scary thing. there was a lot of hyperbole and assumption in this reporting. what most people reported is what i reported in the beginning, which was that the secret service is investigating allegations that agents who were believed to be intoxicated or under the influence, drove onto the white house and hit a temporary barricade.
most people wrote exactly that. and indeed director clancy confirmed that was true on his appearance at the house hearing the other day when he said that, when he learned about this, of course five days later, but when he learned about this incident, he said the first thing he heard from his staff, really from a friend outside of the agency, was that there were reports and allegations that agents were drunk and had crashed into something at the white house. he said that on tuesday. i mean, you can look at the transcript. so, to say now that it's not so serious, the driving part, i think most people who are watching the secret service, or just every day taxpayers, are saying, but what does your investigation show about two of your senior most officials, suspected of drinking, getting in a government car, using it to go into a bomb scene, what about
that? and what we learned about that may be very limited by something director clancy said later today. >> which was about the videotaped evidence of the incident -- at least i think that's where you're going. this has been a strange turn in the last 24 to 48 hours, this question of whether the secret service retains videotapes showing this incident. they're saying that some of the tapes from that night were taped over. they're trying to get the manufacturer in to try to restore those tapes. what's your understanding about what's going on with videotapes of this incident and how they tape things in general at the white house? >> so we began at "the post" hearing about this tuesday night. because clancy -- director clancy had a briefing privately with some key lawmakers who have some oversight role over the secret service.
hearing about this tuesday night, because director clancy had a private briefing with some key lawmakers who have some oversight role over the secret service. and in that briefing, the members left it very disturbed. the reason was, he said i may not be able to give you any more tape because we have a policy of overtaping, basically writing over surveillance footage every 72 hours. there are hundreds of cameras on the perimeter that are trying to capture all sorts of angles of what's going on. when there's a serious incident, this footage is supposed to be saved, ie, not written over, so that the service can check out what happened, use it possibly in court for evidence and use it for protective intelligence to figure out how did that fence jumper get over the fence, where did we have a weak spot? so this video is retained when there are incidents. what director clancy told lawmakers today was, well, we had an incident that night, but a lot of the tape has been overwritten and lawmakers are upset about that and wondering how that can be. >> carolyn, thank you for taking
the time to walk us through. it's very clarifying and specific. thank you. >> you bet. >> you think about those overlapping problems. if it's taking four or five days to go up the chain after an incident happens, but they're overwriting the tapes every three days. you know how that goes. stay with us. if you can clear a table without lifting a finger... you may be 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™. real transformations can happen as much inside a person as out. that's why you should take the listerine® 21 day challenge. use listerine® and over 21 days you'll experience a transformation. take the listerine® 21 day challenge and start your transformation today. in our house, we do just about everything online. and our old internet just wasn't cutting it. so i switched us from u-verse to xfinity.
work on a three-wheeled medical razor scooter. can't run, can't walk, can't crawl. all right then, medical scooter, i'm coming in, boss. yes, you've got a brand new debilitating injury, but somehow, some way, roll into work. what happened for that very committed guy? the guy on the medical razor scooter guy is the best new thing in the world in a very long time. that's next.
best new thing in the world today. this is the intersection of unbridled love and falling straight down. as you probably know, but you may or may not care a lot about, the college basketball tournament that everybody calls march madness is going on right now. of all the division i college basketball programs in the country, 68 go to the tournament. the tournament is set up which every single game is single elimination.
so no matter how good you are, no matter how highly you are seeded in the tournament, if you lose a game to anyone at any time, your team is out. so that's part of why it's exciting. even if you don't follow college basketball the rest of the year, it's the possibility of upsets. today there was a great upset. georgia state has a head coach named ron hunter. his son is on the team that he coaches, his son's name is r.j., ron jr. the way georgia state got into the tournament is that the coach's son, r.j., made the deciding free throws with 20 seconds left to win the game and clinch a trip to the ncaa, and it was very, very, very exciting. when he did that, dad and lad screamed and hugged and fell on the ground celebrating, and it was amazing for the team and for this father and son and they were jumping and he, while they were jumping around, dad hurt himself. he tore his achilles tendon
while he was jumping around celebrating his team getting into the tournament in the first place. he cannot use his busted leg at all. so he's been coaching since then from an office stool, and he has a razor motor scooter thing that he's been using to get around and also to coach. well, his team, georgia state, was not slated to have a long tournament this year, because their first game was against baylor. and baylor is really good this season. baylor is ranked high in the tournament, ranked quite a bit higher than georgia state is. so georgia state was expected to lose to baylor in their first game today. expected to lose by just about everybody. but georgia state did not lose to baylor today. georgia state was down by 12. they were losing badly with less than 3:00 left. but they came back and right at the buzzer, right before the end of the game, the some of the coach, r.j. hunter, hurled a huge three-point shot at the
buzzer. he was more than 30 feet away from the basket and he hit it! and then the coach's son, with his dad coaching on the sidelines from his little scooter, r.j. hunter hurled the shot at the buzzer and it went in and then watch what happened to his dad. just watch. watch the dad. go on. >> r.j. hunter for three. got it! >> r.j. hunter knocked his dad off his little scooter, because he was so happy for his team and so excited for his son and georgia state advances and they upset baylor. watch it again. go on. the greatest single still image from that moment is this one. look, the woman on the bench next to the coach when she
realizes what's happening to the coach. that's the freaking greatest thing i've ever seen. whether or not you love basketball or sports at all, come on. come on. that is the best new thing in the world today and we know it. we'll see you again tomorrow. best new thing in the world today and we all know it. "first look" is up next. >> good morning. right now on "first look" over 32 million americans are welcoming the first day of spring with the late season snow storm. a protest over a deadly police shooting turns ugly with multiple arrests. bracket busting battles begin in basketball and a stunning reversal for israel's prime minister and monica lewinsky speaks out about shame and personal responsibility. >> on this first day of spring winter is still winning. right now 32 million of us are bracing for a late season snow. in the bullseye northeast yet again. advisories