tv State of the Union With Candy Crowley CNN January 19, 2014 9:00am-10:01am PST
ratings at the beginning of "american idol" this season. three al jazeera reporters remain in prison in egypt, but there was a glimmer of hope on friday. >> we have got a weekend roundup of other stories that may not have made news. thanks for watching this week, and let me know what you think of the show online, and we'll be back next sunday in d.c. reining in big brother. or not. today, privacy verses security. >> we still have a long way to go to make sure we balance americans' privacy.
>> we have gone too far on attacking the privacy rights of the american people. >> i don't think any changes are called for. but the ones the president made are minimal. >> an interview with house intelligence committee chairman mike rogers. and benghazi, a senate committee concludes that the deaths of four americans were avoidable and the state department failed to act on long standing security concerns. >> there were failures and no one has been held accountable. why? >> have we gotten to the bottom of benghazi? and michelle obama hits the big 5-0 with a favorable rating north of 6-0. this is state of the union. good morning, i'm candy crowley, new jersey governor chris christie is in florida this weekend, fundraising for
fellow republicans. back home in new jersey, there are new allegations that his office threatened to withhold superstorm sandy relief funds. i will spoke with hoboken mayor john zimmer in a few moments. they call something that pleases no one a compromise. in an election year they often call it politics as well. joining me now is mike rogers, chairman of the joint intelligence committee. one of the biggest thing in this and the thing that has concerned so many people is this bulk gathering of data on what phone numbers call what phone numbers in what manner of time, et cetera, et cetera. so the so-called meta data program. so the president said, i'm going to take all that data and put it somewhere else. where else? >> first i thought it was very
important that the president late out, there was no abuses, this wasn't an illegal program. this wasn't a rogue agency. >> every time i hear someone say th that, i think that that's because the people that are there know they shouldn't do that. but an agency is only as trust worthy as its employees. and we all know from edward snowden, that can change in a moment. >> what they didn't understand, certainly snowden didn't understand is all the sources of oversight. even the independent review board found no abuses, legal program. the problem was the sensationalism of a rogue agency, or domestic spying, none of that was true. so i thought it was important that the president laid that case out. hey, this was not true. you may not like the fact that this happens, but this was a
legal program. there was plenty of oversight on this program that you don't find in other places, i think that's why we have had no abuses in the program, number one. but number two in the speech, and i think this is important, only in washington, d.c. can you announce you have a review board and then announce in your big decision that you're going to review the review board and then review the decision in 70 days, i'm for it, but i don't think it should go here, somebody else is going to have to figure this out. that's been the problem with the president on this particular issue, we really did need a decision on friday a and what we got was lots of uncertainty. and just in my conversations over the weekend with intelligence officials, the uncertainty is already having an affect on our ability to detect terrorists that are trying to get into the united states. >> it's not like here's what we're going to do, it's all done, i'm moving forward. but he did have well in 60 days
we'll figure out where to put this data. what does that tell you about the president's intent? >> again, it took i think a long time to come to the conclusion where we needed to come out and say this is a legal program, yes it is important to national security. the reason we got here is there was a gap, right after 9/11 when all of americans are saying how does this happen? the fact that a phone call from a known terrorist location came into the united states, they could only get half of that eindication, we needed something to fill that gap. this was the program and i think clearly through all of this turmoil and all of this spotlight, people found out, well, i guess there is a huge degree of oversight on this particular program, where you didn't see this in even other parts of the government. that's how we got here, and i think the president is tugged. he certainly is listening to the voices who say we shouldn't do any of this at any time for any
reason. and i think he's trying to listen to the national security voices which are bipartisan saying, you know what? this is an important program, we can do this with proper oversight and you do need the oversight, but we can do it with prosecutor oversight and protect americans' privacy. >> but the truth of the matter is that his advisory board said, look, there's no real evidence we can point to that this program has helped stop a terrorist attack. so therefore there is collection of private data, what was thought to be private data on almost every american for a program that hasn't turned up a terrorist. does that not seem -- and the president sort of chose to then put it into private hands or place. where is that place that can't be targeted or any of these places that end up being hacked into, what is that place?
>> one of the failings of the report was not to have long conversations with the fbi, as a matter of fact they had no personal relationship with the fbi in the conducting of the report. pretty hard to come to a conclusion, there was no impact. when you do an investigation, it's an important to have some clue line up the next clue. and this program clearly has done that and it has clearly had an impact, we argue a significant impact on eight of the cases in the affirmative meaning that it led to a disrupti disruption. and it stopped hundreds of thousands of fbi man hours chasing down radicals. that's hugely important. we don't have resources to waste when we know we have these targets. here's the problem with the president's proposal. he said he's for the program, it works. he has very serious privacy ter concerns by mandating that the private sector keep it and so do
i, but we're going to find the difference in the next 30 days. we have looked at this issue. >> so not private and not government. >> i don't know where that goes. we have to come to the conclusion as americans, can you put the proper oversight on these programs? i think we have, i think we did, both under bush and under mr. obama to make sure we have a program that fills the gap that we know we missed on the 9/11 attacks. i don't think we want to go to pre-9/11 because we haven't had an attack. why? i argue because we have all of the tools on the table to protect americans and you can do it while protecting privacy and civil liberties. >> the question of the president's proposal, will they make america les safe in your opinion? >> i think they're unworkable. the match chin nations of going
to the court, i think it creates confusion. >> that would be the phone records? >> the meta data business records, that slows down the process, when you slow down the process, that causes problems. and the other piece is, should we be giving foreigners from whom we are trying to collect intelligence, the same rights as united states citizens. >> we're going to extend some privacy rights to nonamericans. >> it wasn't very clear so we're going to have to work through it to make sure that it doesn't hinder our able. we want our spy agencies spying on foreigners -- >> do you think more to speak to the progressives and those that were criticizing the program in general than to actually make any big changes particularly in the meta da a data program.
>> he says -- that is a huge problem as we move forward. >> but it hasn't happened. >> here's the problem in discussing over the weekend, by interjecting this new level of having to go get a warrant, for what in the private sector you would use a subpoena, two different levels of legal authority, or the ability to prove a point, probable cause versus reasonable articulatable suspicion. that's a problem, that means that there will be a period of time that we will not be a i believe to query a very secure and safe database, that only about 20 people have the ability to get in, so that part i'm concerned about and we have got to fix that. we better fix this tomorrow. >> let me turn you to the olympics. a lot of safety concerns, there
seem to have been another terrorist attacks from chechnya, principally. would you feel safe? >> if i went to the olympics, i would have security. >> how much for stleets? >> i am very concerned about the security status of the olympics. i believe the russians need to be more -- we have found a departure of cooperation that is very concerning to me. >> can you tell me what a departure of cooperation is? what does that mean? what are they doing? >> think about the problems they have had. so they have had several bombings, a disrupted plot. they have now moved some 30,000 armed troops down to the region, that tells you that their level of concern is great, but we don't seem to be getting all of the information we need to protect our athletes in the games. i think this needs to change. and it should change soon.
this is not going to be a political problem for the russians to share, although they apparently don't think so. it will be a problem -- >> they don't want to share their intelligence with u.s. intelligence? >> that's correct. so what we're finding is they're not giving us the full story about what are the threat streams, who do we need to worry about? are those terrorist groups that have had some success, are they still plotting? there's a missing gap. you never want that when you go into something i think as important as the olympic games and the security of the athletes and the participants and those who come to watch the game. >> if that does not change, would you worry about u.s. participation in the olympics? >> if i don't see a higher level of cooperation, i am concerned today. i don't think anything would abate that concern, short of full cooperation from the russian security services. >> mike rogers, from the great state of michigan thanks for being here. a report that says signs of
the attack were there, but there was failure to act. ncer ] when r favorite food starts a fight, fight back fast with tums. heartburn relief that neutralizes acid on contact and goes to work in seconds. ♪ tum, tum tum tum tums! is that true? says here that cheerios has whole grain oats that can help remove some cholesterol,
and that's heart healthy. ♪ [ dad ] jan? are you flo? yes. is this the thing you gave my husband? well, yeah, yes. the "name your price" tool. you tell us the price you want to pay, and we give you a range of options to choose from. careful, though -- that kind of power can go to your head. that explains a lot. yo, buddy! i got this. gimme one, gimme one, gimme one! the power of the "name your price" tool. only from progressive. of the dusty basement at 1406 35th street the old dining table at 25th and hoffman. ...and the little room above the strip mall off roble avenue. ♪ this magic moment it is the story of where every great idea begins. and of those who believed they had the power to do more. dell is honored to be part of some of the world's great stories. that began much the same way ours did. in a little dorm room -- 2713.
i want to pick up where i left off with congressman rogers, you're both on your separate houses on the intelligence committee, what are your fears about the olympics? >> well, it's a very serious fear, i think, because the olympics happen to be being held in an area where there has been a history of terrorist activity, where there's been a lot of tension between islamists in that area and the government of russia. terrorism is so hard to detective. there's a guy in the middle east now who's working on the design of a totally nonmetallic bomb. and, you know, that kind of thing, it's -- i don't know how you do it frankly when you have thousands and thousands of people and people milling around. we could have prevented the attack at the boston marathon by having 20,000 troops shoulder to shoulder on the road. but this is a real challenge for
the russians and i agree with mike rogers, if i were them, i would be advising and working with every intelligence agency in the world as thoroughly as possible to try to prevent something from happening. >> given that nothing is ever 100% secure these days, is it in your mind safe enough for your family to go, for maine athletes to go? is it safe enough, do you think? or will it be safe enough? >> i will answer that question honestly, i would not go and i don't think i would send my family. i don't know how you put a percentage on it, but it's just such a rich target in an area of the world that has, you know, they have almost broadcast that they're going to try to do something there. i would be -- it would be a stretch, i think, to say i'm going to send my family over.
>> and i'm assuming that the athletes somehow, that whole u.s. olympic team is getting security and strategic advice? >> oh, yes, absolutely. we have a guy here in maine, scott westcott who's won two gold medals and i'm sure he's going to be on the team and they're going to certainly have a very high level of security, but, you know, it's of concern. but you know, it's of concern here, i'm afraid, candy, that this is going to be of concern anywhere in the future. i mean, you know, you've got people that, what they want is some maximum damage, they want to harm a lot of people, draw attention to their cause, whatever it is. and i'm kind of worried about the world cup down in brazil as well. i think these kinds of concerns are going to be heightened as we go into this uncertain world where all it takes is one guy with a bomb.
>> let me turn you to the benghazi story this week, where the senate intelligence committee put out a bipartisan report and said essentially, i think what we all knew was that there were huge warnings and signals that the u.n. had pulled out some of its folks, the red cross -- i'm sorry, britain had pulled out some of its folks, the red cross has also pulled out some of its folks because they knew benghazi was not at all stable and there were terrorist groups working within benghazi. i want to play for you manager that your senate colleague marco rubio said on the floor. >> they didn't have enough security to face -- maybe they shouldn't even have been there in the process. the buck stops request hillary clinton. >> to his point, let me ask you, is hillary clinton partially to blame for this lack of security and therefore accountable for those deaths?
>> well, i thought a lot about that, candy and that's a hard question. it ultimately a political question. yes, she was secretary of state, was she the person making decisions about security at u.s. facilities, by the way there are over 100 around the world that have security. did somebody come to her and say we need more security at benghazi and she said no, don't bother. there's no evidence that i have seen that she was directly involved in that decision. on the other hand, she's the ceo, she's the boss and i have gone back and looked at the law and how you hold ceos accountable for lapses down the line. and generally, the standard is there has to be some either knowledge or participation in the decision. as i said in the beginning, i think the american people are going to have to make this decision. i'm not being a partisan of hillary here, but i do think you've got an organization with
20,000 or 30,000 or 40,000 people. to say that the decision of one person was the responsibility of the boss who really wasn't making that decision. having said that, there's no question is state department screwed up here and there should be accountability in my opinion. who did make that decision in light of all the information and why? and i think that's a very fair question, and frankly, i'm surprised and disappointed. i know some people have been sort of shifted around, but you know, if accountability means anything, it means somebody paying a price for having made a disastrous decision. >> right. so -- and there were people who were put on -- but were found not to have done anything wrong and they were shifted around to other jobs. so you would agree that no one has been held accountable for the fact that the state department failed, whether in the person of hillary clinton, or anyone else at the state department, they failed to protect a u.s. property and the
u.s. people in it, despite all those warnings? you think someone should have been fired? >> i agree, i haven't seen any real accountability and i think that's been a failure in this whole process. and actually, susan collins, my colleague from maine had a kind of addendum to the report where she identified some people that she thought should be held accountable based on her work on the homeland security committee. so i think that's part of it. but let me sort of tie benghazi to what you were talking to mike rogers about, about the telephone data. you know, we're pretty good in washington at monday morning quarterbacking. and certainly on benghazi, that's what we have been doing for about a year. ask yourself this question, the president or the congress suspends a program of collection of intelligence that could prevent a terrorist attack and an atomic bomb blows up in miami, you bet there would be a lot of discussion about, you know, would that program have
helped? who turned it off? who decided not to do it and all that kind of thing. i think what we're all struggling with, the president and two intelligence committees, the congress and our country, is calibrating risk versus privacy. there are terrorist threats, people do want to kill us. and yet, we have this thing of the fourth amendment, which is a deep, abid bidbiding part of ou culture and our society, and providing a bat lance that has to be balanced all the time between the legal of risk and the technology that's available that could potentially invade our privacy. i want the data out of the hands of the united states government. that bothers me. i don't like relying on the good faith and good nature of the people in charge. i think a check and balance and i don't know whether it should go into a third party or some
other way of holding it. but to me, once they have got it, it's out of -- then we have crossed a line, think. >> senator angus king, this looks like it will be a conversation in washington for -- a new jersey mayor says an official from governor christie's office threatened to withhold superstorm sandy relief funding unless she supported a redevelopment plan by the governor. the mayor of hoboken, new jersey is next as is our political panel. [announcer] word is getting out. purina dog chow light & healthy is a deliciously tender and crunchy kibble blend. with 20% fewer calories than purina dog chow. isn't it time you discovered the lighter side of dog chow.
purina dog chow light & healthy. suddenly you're a mouth breather. a mouth breather! how do you sleep like that? you dry up, your cold feels even worse. well, put on a breathe right strip and shut your mouth. cold medicines open your nose over time, but add a breathe right strip, and pow! it instantly opens your nose up to 38% more so you can breathe and do the one thing you want to do. sleep. add breathe right to your cold medicine. shut your mouth and sleep right. breathe right. there's nothing like being your own boss! and my customers are really liking your flat rate shipping. fedex one rate. really makes my life easier. maybe a promotion is in order.
good news. i got a new title. and a raise? management couldn't make that happen. [ male announcer ] introducing fedex one rate. simple, flat rate shipping with the reliability of fedex. ♪ every now and then i get a little bit tired ♪ ♪ of craving something that i can't have ♪ ♪ turn around, barbara ♪ i finally found the right snack ♪ [ female announcer ] fiber one. and his new boss told him two things -- cook what you love, and save your money. joe doesn't know it yet, but he'll work his way up from busser to waiter to chef before opening a restaurant specializing in fish and game from the great northwest. he'll start investing early, he'll find some good people to help guide him, and he'll set money aside from his first day of work to his last, which isn't rocket science. it's just common sense.
-- her city would not receive aid if she failed to support a development project favored by the governor. in one of the several handwritten notes about the governor which she has made public. mayor zimmer wrote, i thought he was honest, i thought he was moral, i thought he was something very different. i am so disappointed, it literally bringing tears to my eyes. joining me now, mayor dawn zimmer. thank you madam mayor, i know you're fighting losing your voice. but let me ask you first, this happened early last year, correct in may of last year when a couple of officials you say that -- sandy relief aid may be jeopardize if you don't go along with this redevelop plan. why are you near now?
>> back in may when the lieutenant governor came and very directly said to me that these two things are connected, i i didn't think anyone would believe me, looking back i probably should have come forward. but i really didn't think anyone would believe me, and if i came forward and no one believes me, i'm going to put hoboken in an even worse position. and my main position as mayor of hoboken is to get as many funds as possible. i was really concerned that if i came forward no one would believe me and we would really be cut out of the sandy funding. but watching the bridge gate, you do siee parallels. >> what we have seen since this happened in may, which you recorded in your diary, we have seen you complement the mayor, we have seen you several months later say in a tweet, i'm so
glad that chris christie is our governor. so can you square that for me? because as you know, coming at this point, what the chris christie office says is this is just politics. why can this not be seen through a political lens? >> that's part of the reason that this was so hard. because i do have a really good relationship, or i did have a really good relationship. and i couldn't believe they were doing this. mayor chris christie's response is -- did they connect sandy hoboken funding to the project. that is what they did. i'm coming forward, i'm sharing my story directly, i'm sharing my journal, i'm offering to testify under oath. what are they doing? they're hiding behind spokes people, and the lieutenant governor was -- i believe if and
when she is asked to testify under oath, the truth will come out because i believe she will be truthful and she will tell the truth. >> okay, anything that connects directly to chris christie on this? i mean i understand that he had a relationship with -- you're talking to his lieutenant governor, you're talking to others in his administration, that he has a relationship with this rockefeller group, but, is there -- did he ever say anything to you? did you ever not get funds? i know you didn't get everything you wanted, but i imagine that's true of most cities in new jersey. >> well, i think we really got shortchanged on the funding and we have been saying from the very start that we have severe needs and that we need to look at this comprehensively and we have been asking them again and again, a and the fact is, she came, the lieutenant governor pull med aside and said that you got to move forward with the rockefeller project. this project is really important to the governor. a and she had said that she had
been with him on friday night and that this was a direct message from the governor. >> she said that to you? >> she said that to me, is that this is a direct message from the governor, i was with him on friday night. >> again, if this happens in may, you've got a city that was just devastated by superstorm sandy that needs these funds and needs them immediately not, you know, two or three years from now. so in may you have this conversation and the lieutenant governor says to you, this is a direct message from chris christie, get behind this project or funds may be in jeopardy for your recovery. and then in august i think is when you tweeted, i'm so glad he's governor of new jersey. it's just hard to put those two things together. >> well, again, i mean i had to, you know, basically almost set aside what she said to me because, you know, it is unbelievable, but it's true. it's true and i'm coming forward, and i just didn't feel that we were going to be able to get the funding.
i was concerned that people weren't going to believe me. i mean it's stunning, it's outrageous. but it's true. and i stand by my word and like i said, i am willing to testify under oath. and i think when she testifies under oath, i think we're going to see the truth come out because i believe she will be truthful under oath. they did not respond to the number one question. are they linking -- my number one priority is to do what's right for hoboken and to do what we can to get sandy funding. at the time i didn't think anyone would believe me, but i'm coming forward. as we look at these parallels, the parallels are that we have the christie administration using their authority to try and get something. i don't know what they were trying to get in the bridge gate, but i do know what they
were trying to get in hoboken, they were holding our sandy funds hostage in order to push through and expedite the rockefeller project. >> i did speak to someone inside the governor's office this morning, and they said, listen, our first pot was $300 million. the request from hoboken was $100 million. they got $70 million. and they said when you look across the state of new jersey, all of these places were hurting and needed more money at that point, obviously, than they had. that $70 million out of a $300 million pot at that point is pretty good. it's almost a third of the funds. >> well, actually the $70 million that the government is taking credit for, the majority of that is from the flood insurance program that residents and businesses have paid themselves. they're paying premiums and they're getting those flood insurance programs. so that has nothing to do with
the $70 million and the bottom line is we applied for over 1$10 million and we got a little over $70,000. the majority of that $70 million that they're talking about was from the flood insurance that they were not responsible for administering. >> i'm sure you've gotten calls from some of your democratic mayoral -- >> can you repeat that question? >> sure. have you spoke on the any other mayors in new jersey that have similar stories? >> i have spoken to mayor fullup and i know his story of what happened to him and he's going to say they too have not gotten that much sandy funding and for him, he saw something very clear that happened that they had important meetings set up, day long series of meetings that was
set up for his whole administration to understand the challenges that jersey city was facing and those meetings were cut off right away. >> always in the aftermath, particularly if they're state wide, the feds aren't giving us enough money, or the state's not or insurance company, that it's just so overwhelmingly awful that it's impossible to put everything back in place as it was. could it be that the reason you're not getting the funds you want is not about this, but about the fact that there still are limited funds? i'm told again, by the new jersey governor's office, that when the next, when the president approves the next round of aid, certainly hoboken is going to get some. so have you seen yet the results of the threats you say you got? >> i think we have seen the results and the fact is she made the threat. when the lieutenant governor -- >> i mean has it come to
fruition, is what i mean. >> yes, i think it has come to fruition, i think it has come to fruition in the first round and i'm not going to stand silent for the second round and not have hoboken not get the funding, we deserve our fair share, we deserve some of this funding. we have seen it happen in the first round, and i'm not going to stand aside, and the bottom line is she came and made a direct threat to me. she came, and when the lieutenant governor comes and pulls you aside in a parking lot and says that these two things are connected, i know it shouldn't be, they are, if you tell anyone, i'll deny it. she felt almost guilty about saying it, she knows it's wrong. but that's exactly what they're trying to do. >> do you think if you had stood up and discussed this conversation at the time it would not have gotten big play? i know you're saying you don't think anyone would believe you, but it certainly would have put it out there in the local news
media, probably the national news media because of chris christie's profile? >> i don't think people at that time, i don't think people would have believed me and i think -- and at that time, they hadn't carried out their threat. so i basically -- again, my number one priority is looking out for hoboken. so i decided that it was best not to say anything at that time because i wanted to make sure that hoboken still had a chance of getting funding. and i thought if i came out with that, then, you know, we surely wouldn't get the funding. so it was a decision that i made at that time. >> i want to read you a part of what chris christie's spokesman collin reid had to say in a statement to cnn in which he said, it's very clear, partisan politics are at play here, as democratic mayors with a political ax to grind come out of the wood work and try to get their faces on television. as one of the faces on television, i'm going to give
you a chance to respond to that. >> i'm not surprised that they are taking that approach. but in some ways i am. i mean i'm the one that has stood with chris christie from the very beginning, i mean i hosted anymore in hoboken for his first town hall meeting on the 2% tax cut, i stood with him on arbitration, we have had -- every interaction i have had with him, it's been a positive interaction. i'm not surprised that they're trying to take this approach. but i haven't been a part of the democratic machine so to speak, to me it's a deflection, again tharks're not answering the core question and the core question is did the lieutenant governor say what she said? and they're not even answering that in their statements. they're hiding behind spokes people. she got them on her cell phone and said i can't respond, my spokes people will be responding.
but when it comes to time, if they are asked to testify, it won't be their spokesperson who will be testifying, it will be them testifying. and she'll be asked under oath. the governor got a lot of support, he got a couple hundred more votes than me in hoboken and most of my supporters support governor crihristichris yes, i am a democrat, but i'm someone who has been extremely supportive of the christie administration and i have worked with them on a number of legislative issues, they really helped us with our hospital. i'm not in that mold so to speak, i'm a different face and if they really look back and reflect on that, they know that's the truth. >> in fact, the governor's office told me that they were kind of surprised by this on friday, they thought the relationship between you and the governor was quite good and in fact you were in the governor's office, not meeting with the governor, but meeting with some of his officials as late as last
thursday, so the relationship is still okay? >> well, actually they were in my office, there was one representative from the governor's office, there was new jersey transit, it was rebuild by design team, an international design team and we were talking about this plan, this competition that we're apart of under hud secretary donovan, it's an excellent competition that we're working on a comprehensive plan to really protect hoboken and really hoping to move that forward. but my concern is that the governor ultimately will not support this plan unless i move forward with the rockefeller project. and if i don't have his support on this plan, then we're not in a good position to win the competition. so that's my frustration and that's my concern. and again, now i'm trying to do what, you know, what i think is best for hoboken and i also felt as more and more comes out about bridge gate that i had an obligation to come forward. because i think there are some strong parallels here.
>> and you would concede as a politician yourself, that the christie camp would look at this and see this as piling on or supporters of the governor would say this looks like democrats piling on and sort of keeping it in the news. >> i'm sure they would look at it that way, but to me, that's a deflection, again, have they answered the question, did the lieutenant governor say this to me? they have not directly responded to that question. did they tie hoboken sandy funding to the rockefeller project? and yes they did. that is a fact and they have failed to respond to that to date and they have failed to respond to it directly, we have not heard from the governor directly, we have not heard from the lieutenant governor directly. and again, i believe if she is asked to testify, that she will be truthful and the truth will come out. >> when this was going on, when you were in the parking lot having this discussion with the lieutenant governor, there's part of me that says, this takes
place in politics a lot. i mean to the winners go the spoils, people say you got to go with the governor on this because it's really hard to do this, et cetera. but when you were having this particular conversation, did part of you say, this sounds illegal? this sounds like a shakedown? at what point -- where do you think categorizes in the really, really hard world of politics or did it seem to you illegal? >> i thought this is a threat, this is wrong, this is not fair to hoboken, given the devastation that we had. our city was severely flooded, 80% of the city was under water and this was not fair, what she's asking me to do. and it's not fair to hold those sandy funds hostage in exchange for one development project. a and what she was asking me to do was really unfair and just not possible. as far as i think it's something
for others to look at as far as whether it crosses that line, but i know from my perspective, this was not fair and it felt like a threat. >> almost guaranteed to be continued. so i want to thank you so much, mayor dawn zimmer, i appreciate your time. more on all of this with our panel in a moment. this is interesting. it says here that a woman's sex drive increases at the age of 80. helps reduce the risk of heart disease.
it seems that 80 is the new 18. grannies, bless your heart, you are bringing sexy back! eat up. keep heart-healthy. live long. for a healthy heart, eat the 100% natural whole grain goodness of post shredded wheat. doctors recommend it. there's nothing like being your own boss! and my customers are really liking your flat rate shipping. fedex one rate. really makes my life easier. maybe a promotion is in order. good news. i got a new title. and a raise? management couldn't make that happen. [ male announcer ] introducing fedex one rate. simple, flat rate shipping with the reliability of fedex.
but it looks like maybe we should ask your doctor about pradaxa. in a clinical trial, pradaxa® (dabigatran etexilate mesylate)... ...was proven superior to warfarin at reducing the risk of stroke. and unlike warfarin, with no regular blood tests or dietary restrictions. hey thanks for calling my doctor. sure. pradaxa is not for people with artificial heart valves. don't stop taking pradaxa without talking to your doctor. stopping increases your risk of stroke. ask your doctor if you need to stop pradaxa before surgery or a medical or dental procedure. pradaxa can cause serious, sometimes fatal, bleeding. don't take pradaxa if you have abnormal bleeding or have had a heart valve replaced. seek immediate medical care for unexpected signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. pradaxa may increase your bleeding risk if you're 75 or older, have a bleeding condition or stomach ulcer, take aspirin, nsaids, or blood thinners... ...or if you have kidney problems, especially if you take certain medicines. tell your doctors about all medicines you take. pradaxa side effects include indigestion, stomach pain, upset, or burning. if you or someone you love has afib not caused by a heart valve problem...
...ask your doctor about reducing the risk of stroke with pradaxa. before those little pieces would get in between my dentures and my gum and it was uncomfortable. [ male announcer ] just a few dabs is clinically proven to seal out more food particles. [ corrine ] super poligrip is part of my life now. joining me around the table, michael crowley, donna brazile. thank you all for being here, especially since we have to shorten our time with you. here's the mayor of hoboken,
sort of adding on, where are we in the assessment damage for chris christie? >> we're still in the everybody's trying to figure things out stage, right now when you look at for instance chris christie's favorable ratings, there's four out of ten americans that are still unsure. a lot of folks are saying, this is odd, i don't know if this adds up, nothing's been connected to governor christie yet, let's wait until -- >> but true, but not connected then becomes the guy can't manage his own store? >> that's right. i think the big question now is will another shoe drop that shows that direct connection, which is really a nuclear bomb, you can imagine his career being over if it looks as if he gave direct orders to do the bridge closure, but even short of that, i do think people are judging him and i think it's fair to judge him based on the kinds of people that are around him and who you surround yourself with,
i think that's a fair test of leadership. he's definitely suffering a lot of damage. he had a lot of baggage, you remember the book game change talked about the mitt romney opposition file. a lot of those allegations haven't been proven or vetted out by the media, you better believe reporters are working on it. >> it has tainted his brand and also his administration right now, looks like things are falling apart because every day there's a new story a a new r revelation. >> the mayor of hoboken did tie it to him. but she said lieutenant governor said to me, i was with the governor last night and this is a message from him. get behind this project or your sandy funds are in jeopardy. still not clear to me if her sandy funds were really jeopardized. she believes there were.
but again, after these kinds of disasters, nobody gets enough money. >> many felt pressure to support chris christie. chris christie people were looking for things they could talk about for 2016. >> and also just the headlines themselves, it almost, in some ways you can say none of them are true, but just the daily headlines taken away from other things he might be doing, raising money for republicans, et cetera. >> there's no question, we can talk about is it fair, is the media paying attention at this point? christie's staff believes they are. it's hurting him and it's -- and it's making republicans, donors, party leaders who are looking for their candidate in 2016 a lit more reticent. by the way.
>> hillary clinton, i want to move to her. you all had a cover, can anyone stop hillary? i bring you benghazi, this week, we kind of find what we already knew, they didn't pay attention to these safety concerns, particularly in benghazi, but it's fresh for republican who is say then, well if it was avoidable, who's to blame here? and you know where they go, hillary clinton, she's secretary of state. >> i certainly think that republicans will talk about this, but if they think benghazi is the way they can derail hillary clinton's road to the white house. hillary clinton was atop the democratic field at 39% and barack obama's name wasn't even being asked in the polls. we have still got a long way to go before 2016.
>> one difference is even at that time in 2008, analysts were saying her vote in iraq -- she doesn't have that vulnerability now. to those who would say what about benghazi? i would say if benghazi is the% republicans have, it shows where their case is, she sure, put ultimate responsibility on her because she was at the top of the chain. but i don't think most voters don't think that she's directly culpable. >> i think her problem will be more from the progressives that are looking for a new face. you got to go to michelle's 50th birthday party. how was it? >> amazing lady, incredible party, she had her childhood friends there, of course people from the administration, but the most important thing is that beyonce performed and i have to tell you john legend sang "happy birthday" but the most moving tribute came fro barack obama
about the woman he fell in love with. i'm candy crowley in washington. fareed zakaria gps is next for our viewers here in the united states. mom, dad told me that cheerios is good for your heart, is that true? says here that cheerios has whole grain oats that can help remove some cholesterol, and that's heart healthy. ♪ [ dad ] jan?
and my customers are really liking your flat rate shipping. fedex one rate. really makes my life easier. maybe a promotion is in order. good news. i got a new title. and a raise? management couldn't make that happen. [ male announcer ] introducing fedex one rate. simple, flat rate shipping with the reliability of fedex.