tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC November 11, 2015 1:00am-2:01am PST
what are we going to do with the surplus. not there now. >> josh and doer yan, thank you. the rachel maddow show starts now. good evening. good evening, thank you. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. in 2010, a one-term united states senator was up for re-election. and it was a race where nobody could really predict the outcome. it's because on the one hand this is a republican senator and he represented a red state -- a really red state -- and it was a mid-term election year, not a presidential year. everybody knew 2010 would be a really republican year. so all of those basic fundamentals would indicate that should have been an easy seat for an incumbent republican senator to hold onto in 2010. on the other hand, though, this particular incumbent republican senator had an unusual problem. specifically, he had a hooker problem. the senator was a conservative -- socially conservative, family
values politician. he campaigned on the basis of his picturesque, moral family life. put his wife and kids in the ad. he had talked about others' family arrangements as morally inferior to his picture perfect family. but he was also a client of the d.c. madam. he was found to have repeatedly turned up in her phone records while he had been serving in congress in the mid 2000s. when that scandal came to light about louisiana senator david vitter, it complicated the matter. nobody knew how louisiana voters would react to him the next time he was up for re-election, even if he was a republican running for re-election in a red state. his opponent that year in 2010 was a conservative democrat who was really well known across the state. he didn't make the hooker problem the centerpiece of the
campaign against vitter, but it wasn't something he was shy about either. watch. >> david vitter won election to the united states senate as a proud family values politician. but under the surface, vitter was battling demons. a prostitute gave details about her sexual relationship with him. >> he went in, took a shower. spoke very little to me at first. he did his thing. he wasn't there 15, 20 minutes at that. it was $300. >> for me it's not about hookers or cheating on his wife. the man broke the law. there ought to be consequences for that. >> charlie malonson against vitter in 2010. it's kind of genius, right? they made it out like a tv show. they put supposed louisiana voters in silhouette to protect them, implying that david vitter
might come get them. we froze this shot. they made sure to get the guy's gun case in the shot with him in silhouette. you can see the guy criticizing vitter for the hookers thing, cheating on his wife and breaking the law happens to be a down home louisiana gun owner who thinks these things. charlie melancon ran a good campaign after the scandal had exposed vitter as a family values hypocrite. but still charlie lost to david vitter really badly. almost 20 points. well, now for the first time since then david vitter is again going before louisiana voters. this time not running for the u.s. senate seat but for louisiana governor. because louisiana does things differently, the election for louisiana governor will happen next weekend.
okay, louisiana. whatever. the election for governor is next saturday which is weird. that's how they do it. tonight it turns out was the good-bye that toerl debate between vitter and john bell edwards. you know, i know it's debate night for other reasons tonight in america. but this louisiana governor thing, this is the kind of race that we can see becoming political legend before our own eyes. this campaign has been so bare knuckle, so dramatic with so many twists and turns that i have found the race to be le jit matly distracting from other big political stories the country like, for example, the 2016 race. in this louisiana governors' race first there is the matter of the guy hiding behind the air conditioner unit in somebody's backyard in louisiana. you may have heard this. it was a day before the primary
election in this governor's race a couple weeks ago, october 23. four people including a local sheriff were meeting at this cafe, presumably talking politics. they are all politically active guys, democrats and republicans. it was a mix. according to the new orleans advocate the sheriff at the gathering noticed as he was there talking with the guys that somebody was in the cafe with them surreptitiously videotaping the meeting. the sheriff confronted the guy making the videotape. the guy apparently ran out of the cafe. he was pursued by sheriff's deputies. they ran through backyards. it was a giant foot chase. they caught the guy cowering in a backyard behind an air conditioning unit. the guy was a private investigator from texas who was hired by the david vitter for governor campaign to -- i don't know. he was a private investigator
working for the campaign. we don't know what he was doing. we don't know exactly what he was hired to do. he did something that involved videotaping conversations among other local politicos and a sheriff in a louisiana restaurant. that was the day before the primary. in that primary, david vitter and john bell edwards were picked to be the two for the runoff election next week. today, the day of the first debate that same sheriff who gave chase to the guy through the backyards and caught the guy by the air conditioning unit. that guy today -- he picked the day of the debate to give so press conference to update the citizens of louisiana on what happened with that private investigator hired by david vitter who the sheriff and his deputies chased and found cowering behind an air conditioning unit after vitter sent him to videotape the
sheriff in the conversation. this follow up prochbs, the young man, the private investigator from texas is being charged with criminal mischief. sheriff said he's working with the fbi now on the political shenanigans he thinks are implied by the case that may go beyond just criminal mischief. the sheriff let reporters know today in louisiana when they caught the guy hiding behind the air conditioning unit in the backyard according to the sheriff one of the other videos this private investigator had on the camera was an interview with someone who was apparently designed to discredit the woman who had come forward after the d.c. madam scandal to say she was the prostitute he had hired not in washington, d.c. but back home in new orleans. at a price of $300 a pop. i'm sorry. i said pop.
>> one of the other deleted files we were able to restore was a conversation that mr. wes beardan had with a potential witness in an attempt to discredit the story of wendy cortes. it is obvious that individual didn't know she and he were being recorded. both video and audio with this device. they met at an ihop in hammond. throughout this video the investigators are aggressively suggesting what the woman should say in her a. >> that was this afternoon. there is that going on. the other thing that's on his
camera and now calling in the fbi. there is also the bobby jindal factor. bobby jindal is not running for re-election because he has term limits. jindal is running a presidential campaign. it will not end well. was bobby jindal lieutenant governor? he is also a republican elected in the same state-wide slate that bobby jindal was elected. after the primary a republican lieutenant governor learned he would not make the cut. he would not make the run-off election or be in the general election to become louisiana's next governor. after that primary louisiana's republican governor shocked not only the political establishment in his state but shocked the
republican party by coming out and making an endorsement for governor of louisiana. he decided if vitter was running as the republican candidate for governor, forget that he's the republican lieutenant governor. he was going to endorse the democrat. >> when are we going to stop tolerating the emt barmt that too many of our elected officials have heaped upon the state. >> endorsing the democratic candidate for governor over david vitter because he finds vitter to be an embarrassment to the state of louisiana. and as for that democrat he's the other amazing wildcard in the race. yeah. david vitter's political opponents haven't been shy about mentioning his prostitution issues. there is quite some distance between not being shy about the issue and what happened this year from john bell edwards which is he's run an ad like this.
>> the choice for governor couldn't be more clear. john bell edwards who answered our country's call and served as a ranger in the 82nd airborne division or david vitter who answered a prostitute's call minutes after he skipped a vote honoring 28 soldiers who gave their lives in defense of our freedoms. david vitter chose prostitutes over patriots. now the choice is yours. >> after john bell edwards ran the ad this weekend his campaign told the asto niched political press if they liked the tone of that ad, quote, there's more to come. tonight in the debate between john bell edwards and david vitter we probably should have known to expect fireworks because of what happened leading up to tonight. we should have known the candidates were being told by
the moderators tonight to prepare question s to ask each other. they would be questioning each other directly at this debate. we knew he was going to be interesting because the governor's race is nothing if not interesting. i'm quite sure we didn't know it would be like this. this is just tonight. this happened moments ago on the subject of that ad we just showed you. >> you act holier than thou, we don't do negative campaigning. you have the most vicious ad now that veterans have been offended by and asked you to take down. you are not living by the honor code. you are living by the lawyer code trying to parse words and create technicalities. >> we need a question here. >> no, sir. >> the fact is my campaign has not paid for a tracker or private investigator. i haven't seen footage of you anywhere from a tracker.
with respect to the negative ad. if it's a low blow it's only because that's where you live. it's 100% truthful. the fact of the matter is you didn't say it was untrue. you want me to take it down because you don't like it. i understand that you don't like it. it hits you where you live. >> i'm not talking about me saying anything but veterans. >> hundreds of veterans wanted to know that you were missing out on your public performance of your duties in congress in order to engage in those extracurricular activities you don't want to admit to. >> all right. so let's -- >> you're holier than thou -- >> i'm not. >> let's -- >> nobody is doing anything -- >> you said the trial lawyers were working for jay darden, now they are working for me, i dwesz. you will say anything at any time. you are unconstrained by the truth. >> wait, gentlemen. >> the last part is i will not
tolerate those who to. you are a liar. you are a cheater. i don't tolerate that. >> if you don't agree with behavior why are you tolerating and benefitting. >> i'm not benefitting from anything. i haven't looked at it. i haven't used it. >> you are a liar and a cheater and i will not tolerate you. >> with respect to the negative ad if it is a low blow that's because that's where you live, senator. sometimes debates can be fun. joining us now dr. silas lee of xavier university of louisiana. political analyst for wgst-tv. i appreciate your time tonight. >> thank you very much. >> i have to ask your reaction to what you saw and heard at tonight's debate look at it. seems like a lot of fur flying in the governor's race.
>> if you want a political reality show in real time, you have it. the last part of the di bait, that's where you saw the most animation. you have john bell on the attack and david vitter trying to deflect what he was attacking him on. vitter is uncomfortable. this is a topic of discussion on the minds of voters. he tries to move the voters away from that ad. john bel is trying to make david vitter appear to be a clone of bobby jindal. the challenge for vitter is that he's running for governor of louisiana and voters want to know what you will do to address the issue phasing the state. >> when they talked about
veterans rejecting the ad i think he's talking about an objection to a background image showing gravestones at arlington used as an illustration that the vote that david vitter missed which he's been criticized for the phone records of the d.c. madam, the vote concerned honoring u.s. soldiers who were killed in action. as far as i understand it, john bel edwards has announced he'll recut the ad the same way taking that image of the gravestones out of the ad. is that what the exchange was about there? >> it's deeper than that. part of the exchange was they didn't mention it. someone did write a letter, the mother of someone who died in combat wrote a letter complaining about the imagery, the use of the gravestones in the background. what you heard in the exchange was the fact that john bel edwards is bringing this
emotional topic up that vitter doesn't want to discuss. because every time that scandal is mentioned, it reminds voters of a period in his life that he would like to have erased from his political biography. unfortunately for dade vitter is an issue that constantly gives john bel edwards a platform to attack david vitter on. he's very uncomfortable about this. he would like to move attention away from this as much as possible and keep it away from the that. he won't be able to. >> i know the race is all the more impressive as you get closer and closer to it. nice to have you with us tonight to talk about it. >> we have much more tonight on this very busy news night. stay with us.
here's a heads up just about to drop before midnight tonight. if you are a night owl i can tell you what you will hit refresh on your browser about come 11:59 tonight concerning new jersey governor and presidential candidate chris christie. tonight was an all important court imposed deadline for two officials from his administration in new jersey. the two officials who have been criminally charged in the bridgegate scandal. today was the deadline for them to file theirs. these are two who pled not guilty and are fighting the case. today was the deadline for these two chris christie officials to file in court explaining how they will fight their case to try to clear their names. we have word from their attorneys and reporters who are closely following the case that they will stick very strictly to today's deadline. what you are expecting is the lawyers are probably going to wait for the last possible
second to file the defense motions still within today's deadline. the deadline isn't like close of business. it's midnight to midnight. we are expecting tonight those defense filings to get posted. keep an eye out for that. the "wall street journal" reports that the defendants are intending to put up a fight. what the filings should say tonight and they should be posted publically. what they plan to do to clear their names. we should get the first indication to save their own skins extending to them trying to blame other people in the christine administration, give us insight into whether the governor himself will be drawn into these two criminal cases concerning the administration. so, again, we don't know how this will play out over time. this is early days for the criminal cases.
they are expected to go to trial this spring. again, tonight over the next couple of hours it's tick-tock as the lawyers try to make their first efforts to save their clients from time in federal prison. the filings should drop before midnight tonight. the start of a high stakes process. watch this space.
tomorrow is a different thing. tomorrow is the day to say happy veterans day, to say thank you to veterans in your life. tomorrow is a celebratory day that we say thank you and that we celebrate the contribution of all americans who served in the armed forces. veterans' today is the occasion on which political candidates traditionally feel obliged to say what they think the country should do for veterans. last night headed toward veterans' day we got martin o'malley's policy paper on veterans' issues saying he wants to end veteran unemployment by 2020. he want as new national plan to fight suicide among veterans including dramatically increasing the treatment capacity for mental health issues within the v.a. today we got a new plan from hillary clinton on veterans' issues. a robust plan from her to start tackling systemic problems at the v.a. within her first 30 days in office as president.
she's talking about a ze ro tolerance policy for delays in care and abuses of the v.a. system. this year the urgency of the democrats is, yes, because of the ongoing troubles at the v.a. and, of course, because veterans' day is tomorrow. in real life, consequences of partisan politics, it's also particularly urgent for democrats to do it this year, right now. the republican candidates for the v.a. this year. that's this year's newly fashionable republican political plan for veterans. it's espoused from rand paul to ben carson to jeb bush. republicans wanting to can the
v.a. if you want a partisan divide in politics now, here's one. >> i will fight as long and hard as it takes to prevent republicans from privatizing it as part of a misguided ideological crusade. [ applause ] we have seen how they try to seize on anything they can do to advance this goal of theirs which will throw our vets into the private insurance market. i believele in giving that's more choice in when and how you receive care. i think there should be more partnerships between the v.a. and private hospital s hospitals and community health care providers. we cannot and i will not put the veterans at the mercy of insurance companies without care coordination or leave them to fend for themselves with health
care providers who have no expertise in the unique challenges facing our veterans. our young veterans, aging veterans, everybody has specific issues we have to get the v.a. better equipped to address. [ applause ] private station is a betrayal, plain and simple. i'm not going to let it happen. >> privatization is a betrayal. the democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton in derry, new hampshire today. if you want to know where the issue is going in presidential politics with the sharp divide between democrats and republicans on the issue, look at this. this is the vet voice foundation releasing a new poll of veterans today. it's interesting. this isn't a partisan poll. it was from a democratic and a republican pollster working together to poll veterans.
quote, the survey re veals veterans regardless of age, party or branch of the military, oppose privatization of v.a. hospital programs and services. the percentage of veterans who oppose veterans is 64%. 54% of veterans strongly oppose privatization. 57% of veterans say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate if the candidate supported privatizing the v.a. almost all the republican candidates want to privatize the v.a., they are pledging to do it. while 57% of american veterans say that would be offensive enough to them to sway their vote for president. so, yeah. happy veterans' day. here's hillary clinton today saying she won't let it happen, that privatization would be a betrayal and she won't let the republicans privatize the v.a. republican candidates are basically all on board with doing that.
this was los angeles which recently approved a plan to raise the city-wide l.a. minimum wage to $15 by 2020. this was new york city, new york state planning to raise the minimum wage to $15 over the next few years. today governor andrew cuomo said he'll use executive authority to raise the minimum wage for state employees statewide to $15 an hour. that announcement made today. these were nationwide protests today. a huge swath of the country. this is jackson, mississippi, today. this was dorchester, massachusetts. st. petersburg, florida. just about every corner of the country saw protests today. in houston, protesters marched into a mcdonald's restaurant. they held a rally inside the mcdonald's chanting "yes, we can." in many places including minneapolis the marches enned at the local city hall to pressure local an municipal officials.
in d.c., outside the u.s. capitol, democratic presidential candidate bernie sanders joined the demonstrators making an appearance at a rain-soaked rally in d.c. this was milwaukee. where the republican presidential candidates are tonight holding their fourth debate. the protesters held another demonstration outside the theater where the debate was taking place. the protesters are banking on the issue of the minimum wage coming up inside the debate hall. even if it doesn't there will be more around the country in rallies large and small. organizers of the protests say today was a kickoff of what they expect to be a year of activism on the issue right up to the run for the presidential elections. we'll be right back.
[ horn honks melody ] well, well. if it isn't the belle of the ball. gentlemen. you look well. what's new, flo? well, a name your price tool went missing last week. name your what, now? it gives you coverage options based on your budget. i just hope whoever stole it knows that it only works at progressive.com. so, you can't use it to just buy stuff? no. i'm sorry, gustav. we have to go back to the pet store. [ gustav squawks ] he's gonna meet us there. the name your price tool. still only at progressive.com.
stunt. it is the thing they are most excited about. they are more excited about that than anything else now. they are cackling over how awesome that was at the top of gop.com right now. the republican party's home page. neener, neener. scroll down and see that the republican party's hillary clinton fixation is not confined to just stunts involving pass words. the republican party has launched anti-hillary clinton ads this week in seven states. the ad specifically protests against what they are now calling her plan to close guantanamo. the obama clinton plan. they want to impeach hillary clinton on her first day as president and stop her from using her power as a presidential candidate to close guantanamo. presidential candidates don't have the power to close down guantanamo f. they did it would have closed in 2008 when the john mccain-sarah palin ticket said they wanted it closed and the barack obama/joe biden
ticket wanted it closed as well. turns out presidential candidates can't close guantanamo. there is a question as to whether presidents can close it. this was president obama on his second day in office signing an executive order to ban torture and an executive order to review indefinite detentions and close guantanamo within a year. day two in office in january 2009. it was pretty much political consensus at the time that guantanamo needed to be closed. the new president wanted fwunt closed. the republican candidate he just had beaten said guantanamo had to be closed. even president george bush said it should be closed and he opened it. no dice. it's been almost seven years since that executive order was signed and guantanamo is still open. now the defense department is about to release their pentagon plan for how guantanamo could be closed.
that plan is due any day now. we are told it will come out this week. it is expected to be released to the public and congress and the white house. we see republicans making this issue into a hillary clinton issue. don't elect hillary clinton president. she'll close guantanamo. what if after all this time president obama closed guantanamo. what if he got it done? what if he could do it before the end of his presidency so it didn't become the first item on the to do list of either hillary clinton or whoever the republican might be who could beat her. president obama's former white house counsel says president obama has the option to close guantanamo during his own presidency writing in the washington post several days ago, the determination on where to hold detainee s is a tactical judgment at the very core of the president's role as commander in chief. the question is not whether the president can take the nation to
war or hold detainees without congressional authorization. the question is whether congress can tell the president where military detainees must be held. the answer is an emma tick no. one need not accept a broad view of executive authority to see that the restrictions congress has imposed are unconstitutional. congress tried to force the president to main an a specific military te tension facility for specific detainees that in misjudgment is harmful to u.s. national security and too costly. that's no way to conduct a war and the constitution doesn't permit it. the president attempted to work with congress to eliminate the detainee transfer restrictions from. a practical standpoint the constructive involvement of congress would be helpful but the president doesn't need congress's authorization to act f. congress is unable or unwilling to work with him, obama should use his authority as commander in chief to shutter this notorious facility and end this blight on american values and national security.
don't take it from me, liberal blowhard on tv. take it from former white house counsel greg craig writing in the washington post with cliff sloan who president obama put in charge of trying to close guantanamo a couple of years ago. congress does keep passing legislation trying to block president obama from trying to close guantanamo. they did it today. the president's former white house counsel says what congress is doing when they pass a restriction is meaningless. president obama is ignore what congress is doing. he can close guantanamo whenever he wants. if former white house counsel greg craig is right or the white house believes he's right then maybe president obama will be able to keep that day two of his presidency promise after all. of course the stop hillary industry will have to find something else to blame on her that she has nothing to do with.
joining us now greg craig, president obama's first white house counsel. thank you very much for your time. >> happy to be here. >> the congress keeps passing restrictions including the one that's passed today. they have changed over time in the way they have worded the restrictions and what they have targeted in trying to constrain the president. do you believele any constraint by congress on this issue is unconstitutionalle by definition? >> i do. there are two parts to the argument. one is the powers of the commander in chief. the other is the separation of powers that congress has no business intervening in the conduct of a war. let me address the first part. article two gives the president of the united states the power to be the commander in chief of the united states military. this power is at its height making dispositions of soldiers, strategy and tactics, assigning equipment. it's at its height in wartime.
we are at war with al qaeda and al qaeda affiliates. the president right now is a wartime commander in chief and we believe in the core exercise of his power he has the ability to take a detainee from one facility and if he believes it is in the interest of the nation and advances the war strategy he can move the detainee to another mille tear facility. we think he has the power to do it unilaterally. that's the first part of the argument. the second part is when the congress comes in and says, mr. president, not only are we going to tell you you can't make a decision as to where detanes should go, we'll tell you where to put them and keep them there. we think that's an unconstitutional restriction on the powers of the president as commander in chiefs and most courts, all courts would find it such. >> do you believe this matter is something the administration should take to court or
something that the president should defy, let congress or somebody else sue him over it and then have the court fight thereafter. >> this is not something the president takes to court. i think he should do what he's trying to do and has tried to do for seven years which is the preferable way to work with congress and try to get an agreement about how this will happen. there's been a consensus for a long time. only partisan politics got in the way. you pointed it out in the run-up. there was a consensus that it would be in our national interest and we would save a lot of money if we closed guantanamo. i think it's not a matter of the administration going to court. i think the administration exhausts all efforts to work with congress to have congress assist in the closing of guantanamo and bring the detainees, only 59 by my count have to be brought to the united states to close guantanamo.
if that doesn't work he should exercise the constitutional authority he's got and do it on his own. in terms of the political forecasting that i feel inclined to do here though i probably shouldn't, i have to ask you a question you probably won't answer. >> i'm a just a lawyer. i don't do politics. >> you know a lot of people who do. i have to ask if the white house agrees with you. i know you're not white house counsel anymore. is this something you are advocating that the white house should believe or that the obama administration sees it this way, too. >> i think most constitutional lawyers would look at this believe it's a core authority the president has within the commander in chief section of the constitution. i assume in theory and legality and constitutional history the white house agrees with me. there is a little chunk of history that's interesting.
back in the debates of the constitutional convention james madison took notes of what was debated. there was an original formulation that congress could make war. they changed it. they said congress can declare war. everybody agreed that when it came to the direction of war -- and i'm not quoting hamilton. when it came to the direction of war, the exercise of power demanded the unity of one hand. that's important about a commander in chief. he 's is the unitary commander and clearly has the ability to do this. i can't speak for what the white house believes on the legality or constitutionality of it. it's a very simple, straightforward and quite attractive theory. >> greg craig, former white house counsel who i don't believele is speaking for anybody else when he makes these arguments, i have to say, sir. >> good. >> if and when the president makes a decision to close this thing, a lot of what we'll hear
lindsey graham for president released this ad saying "the ohm veteran in the field has opinion silenced." lipped see graham not only on the main stage but not at the kids table either he wasn't invited. i should mention jim gilmore is also a u.s. army vet rap but jim gilmore never gets invited to any debates so nobody much misses him when he's gone. if senator graham or governor gilmore wants another idea thousand get his voice out there, even if the republican party won't let you debate there is something else that could be done that rurz a little bit of gamesmanship and a little tiny bit of lawyering but it could be employed and it would work. the trick is the time is ticking. they have to act very very
for a while in the 2004 race for president, believe it or not, zmart joe lieberman looked like he would be the democratic candidate to beat. he proclaimed joe-mentum, and so it was. in the end, joe-mentum figured out by the time the early primaries were under way, the joe lieberman campaign was struggling so badly, they started pulling in the lawyers to look for that one neat trick that might get him some campaign attention, and that's how in 2004 the joe lieberman campaign went down in the annals of campaign history for using a little-known federal rule to get their candidate significant screen time for one of the worst broadcasts in the history of political broadcasts. they forced local broadcasters to show tape of joe lieberman talking about taxes at a town hall event. his campaign found a provision in campaign law that allowed for
this taped lieberman town hall to be shown in certain television markets throughout the country, even though those stations didn't want to show it. that rule that the lieberman campaign took advantage of in 2004 is now potentially becoming relevant again. more than a decade later in this year's race for president. when hillary clinton made a cameo on "saturday night live" at val the bar tender recently, it triggered something called the equal time rule. if a broadcast station gives a candidate air time outside of a newscast or an interview, other candidates in that same race can file claims with the fcc for their equal time on the air. after hillary clinton's appearance on snl, a candidate larry lessig filed an equal time claim. she appeared in three minutes and 12 seconds in market where is she was running for president, larry lessig, too, wanted three minutes and 12 seconds of air time. we don't know if he ultimately would have gotten what he asked for because he dropped out of
the race before those claims should be settled, but now, of course, more claims could be coming down the pike, this time on the republican side. because this weekend, donald trump hosted "saturday night live" and nbc stations have already posted their equal time notice, explaining that this republican candidate appeared for a total of 12 minutes and 5 seconds in that broadcast, commencing at 11:39 p.m. on "saturday night. his rival candidates now have seven days from the date of that notice to file claims for equal time on air with local nbc stations. so if for whatever reason you happen to be a republican candidate frustrated with your lack of air time, like, say, for example, if you're a super pac who just released a new ad attacking fox for keeping you out of the latest republican debate and silencing the only veteran in the field the day before veterans day. if you, senator lindsey graham, for instance, feel you deserve equal time with donald trump, you're officially on the clock. i'm not suggesting you do this. i would never dream of ordering senator graham to do anything or suggest anything to anyone. but 12 minutes and 5 seconds,
i'm just saying, if you want 12 minutes and 5 seconds of interview time right here, call me. "first look" is up next. it's wednesday, november 11th. right now on "first look" the milwaukee melee. in the fourth debate the gop candidates stopped going after the moderators and turned their attacks on one another. >> you're involved -- >> we should let jeb speak. no it's unfair. >> listen -- >> governor -- >> hold on. new details this morning on the deadly crash of an ohio plane into an ohio apartment building. >> then to nasty weather in much of the country, including a blizzard warning in the great plains east of denver. and possible tornadoes today. it is being called doomsday smog. the worst air pollution reading in china's history. and on the brighter side a sneak peek at this