hear should try to be recovered and enhanced. >> still so much more to learn on this amazing story. james cavanaugh, thank you for joining us tonight. >> thanks, lawrence. >> chris hayes is up next. bridget kelly's blues. let's play "hardball." >> good evening. i'm chris matthews up in philadelphia. let me start tonight with this. a double barrel of politics today. in new jersey, bridget kelly trying to keep bridgegate from becoming bridget-gate refused to hand over e-mails on the scandal, saying to do so would be an admission of involvement. today in washington, the chair of the senate intelligence committee accused the cia of violating the constitution by spying on the senate itself. more on that explosive story right after this.

in trenton today, bridget kelly's lawyer says he won't give capital investigators the e-mail that says "time for some traffic problems in fort lee" because to do so would make her an agent of the investigators, he said, a role she is not willing to play, or not just yet. the big question, what does bridget kelly know and when will we know it? will the u.s. attorney give her immunity to get to someone higher up? will the state legislators or the u.s. attorney decide that she has something really good to give before giving her a pass to freedom? so what will it take for the probers in trenton to get those e-mails and other documents that explain why stopping the traffic on the george washington bridge last september was so darned important to so many christie people. brian murphy is an msnbc contributor and was the managing editor of politics new jersey. and stanley brand is a law professor at penn state and was the general counsel to the u.s. house of representatives. gentlemen, thank you. brian, i want you to start with this thing here.

let's go to the courtroom drama in trenton today. bridget kelly, the key witness in this investigation, appeared in new jersey superior court today to wage war against state investigators who are demanding she comply with a subpoena for documents. her attorney threw down the gauntlet in court, argue thanksgiving would concede nothing, nada. he wouldn't even acknowledge that bridget kelly wrote, quote, time for some traffic problems in fort lee." but then he took it even further. listen to her lawyer. >> everybody says my god, this does it. this is the document. we duce the lanes. okay. so when i look at this document, i look at it. on its face, on its face does it regard the george washington bridge? nope. on its face, does it regard the reduction of three lanes to one access lanes on the george washington bridge? no. on its face, does it relate to activities between september 9th and september 12th? no.

now, it doesn't on its face. so if i respond hypothetically, if i respond and turn over this document, he will basically be testifying yes, although it does not on its face relate to the george washington bridge, i argue that it does. >> that's what we used to call jesuitical. time for some traffic problems in fort lee and said nothing about reducing the traffic lanes, mr. attorney. the lawyer representing the state, he is the tough guy, reid schar, called that argument by critchley, the lawyer for bridget, insane. and then dropped this bomb on the court. here is schar. >> the fact that the department's position is we can't get the e-mail that says "it's time for traffic problems in fort lee" despite the fact we have a third party who has provided it to us, an e-mail from bridget anne kelly with absolute particularity, the standard is everyone can withhold everyone until some

third party has come forward and provided an affidavit that says this is authentic, no one is ever going to be able to get anything in response to a subpoena. it is a forgone conclusion based on the type of communications that are going on that in fact there are additional e-mails that are out there. and i'm not guessing, judge, i know it because i've seen them. >> reid schar seems to have the evidence here. but the attorney for bridget kelly says he is not going to turn over even what is a duplicate of the "time for some traffic problems at fort lee." how does he argue that that's not particular to this matter or particular to this subpoena when it's at the very center and the center of the target? >> yeah, i find that argument -- >> what kind of defense is this? >> i can understand why we would -- as americans we would be biased in favor of broad interpretations of the 50 amendment. but this isn't -- we know this

is a very specific subpoena that has been issued here. they're looking for material related to the bridgegate. and this has already been produced. that's the baffling thing about this part of the argument. we already know about this e-mail. >> wildstein produced it in january. >> that's right. well already know. and everything that wildstein produced, we know is responsive to the question give us everything that you have related to the bridge lane closures. so already know that this exists. i mean, trying to get a do-over on this one, it's already been out there. and the cat is totally out of the bag. >> yeah. i agree. stan, i want to go to stan on this. stan, i read some of your notes today. i think they're brilliant. it ain't her property. she doesn't own e-mail. >> right.

>> this is public business, whether it's gmail or it's dotgov or however she sent it if it's public message about stopping traffic, we own it, or the citizens of new jersey own it. >> it's not personal. it's not a diary. it's not a private letter. it's a document created in her capacity as a government employee. and generally speaking, the fifth amendment doesn't reach that stuff. i don't know whether the lawyers argued that in a separate part of the hearing. but that's at least one way to penetrate the privilege. >> well, brian, as a murphy, you might remember this, the biggest mistake the irish revolutionaries made back in their first fight, the rising was to create a barricade situation, because a barricade situation doesn't last. this defense looks like a barricade situation. >> it does. >> how long can they withstand these subpoenas if all the prosecutor has to do in this case, the lawyer, the counsel

for the legislature, he simply rewrites the subpoena according to this guy's dictates. and they still get it eventually, right, if that's his defense, that it isn't particular enough? >> yeah, and it's already a fairly particular -- it's not a fishing expedition type of subpoena. we already know that they've -- the subpoena that has been issued to her, that she and bill stepien are fighting, that's a subpoena that has been issued in response to documents that have already been produced, relating to a fairly specific matter. so i'm really not sure how you can fight that for very long, especially since you're also dealing with a situation where the legislature's investigation isn't a criminal matter. this is simply the legislature, this is a question about the legislature being able to conduct its constitutional job to provide oversight over the executive. regardless of whether or not the chairman has made statements about whether or not a law has been broken, the legislature, i mean, we would agree, legislatures have to be able to investigate an executive. and if everybody working for the executive could just claim the fifth all the time, then that entire process falls apart. >> well, let me ask you the logic of this thing. the lawyer knows he is losing, but he has to play for time, he or she. and says i'm going to try some of this stuff. it may be crapola, but i'm going to try it for a couple of weeks. what is he doing it for? if it's not going to keep his defendant from having to testify eventually, what is his play

here, brian? what's his play? >> i would imagine, and i'm not a lawyer, and this could be a question that someone else could answer better. but it seems to me you would hope there would be the chance that the state court would just not want to touch, this that this could get kicked into a federal court and maybe, because courts do tend to interpret the fifth amendment fairly broadly, we could find a way to prevent this from coming out. i'm really not sure what the long game is here. >> let me go to stan here. if the public doesn't own this information, who does? it seems to me this is all about public information. if richard nixon couldn't claim the tapes as personal, how can bridget kelly do it? >> that's a good point. >> well, the other problem here, chris, is the u.s. attorney lurking in the background. i don't know if this lawyer would be spending all this time and effort trying to delay the legislative subpoena if it weren't for the u.s. attorney

lurking in the background who is obviously in this case the 800-pound gorilla. and the reason why i think a lot of these people are maneuvering in the state legislature the way they are is they're doubtful or uncertain or fearful of what testifying in front of the legislature will do vis-a-vis the feds. were they to get any kind of immunity, obviously that problem would go away. since they would be immunized for anything they say, except for perjury. >> and that is one of the things >> stan, guys, both of you but first stan, if you're the governor and you're watching this case, you're obviously circumstantially involved in this and certainly involved politically in this whole scandal, because it's all your people involved here, each if your fingerprints aren't on it. what do you think if you're governor christie watching these development. s today? you're watching a very tough defense attorney defending bridget kelly and probably defense attorney for stepien the came way, his campaign manager, fighting tooth and nail to keep from providing this information. that good or bad news for the

governor? stan? >> i think ultimately it's bad news on two fronts. the first front is the pressure builds to give her some kind of immunity. and then you're worried what she is going to say under the protection of the immunity and whether she is going to implicate you or others. the second thing that is worrisome is the fact that apparently the u.s. attorney in manhattan who then withdrew the subpoena, and now it's been taken over by new jersey is that this has spread to the port authority itself. and the u.s. attorney has issued subpoenas for the records of the port authority related to the supposed conflicts of interest of the chairman that governor christie appointed. so this is spreading to other issues as well. >> well, my question to you, brian, where is it going? it seems to me this may have nothing to do with whether sokolich, the mayor of fort lee was or was not going to endorse the mayor for reelection. it gets to the question why would you want to stop traffic for a month unless you're trying to interfere or trying to

squeeze somebody with regard to an economic plan there. something that a month of delays would send a message to developers, we can't develop, but this is a new traffic pattern. it seems to be just bigger than screwing a guy because he wouldn't back you for an election. it seems they're going for the port authority for investigation. this may be more economic and bigger. your thoughts right now thinking story has always seemed that way. it doesn't really make sense that it would be about an endorsement. people wouldn't put themselves in this kind of legal jeopardy if it was just about endorsement. i think the question christie has to be asking himself, what do these people write down? maybe christie has a habit of not producing documents that could later be subpoenaed, but does his staff know enough, are they good enough to follow that rule all of the time in all cases? and he's got to be wondering what it is that might turn up. i mean, unless he is completely innocent in this. all it takes for everybody

involved here is one e-mail saying the governor is concerned or the governor would like this or that. just invoking him in any way makes this story blow up in a way that he would not be happy with and that prosecutors and reporters and the legislature would all be very interested in. >> yeah, the only other interpretation besides complete innocence is deliberate obliviousness. i know what is going on. i can figure what is going on. it sounds like the m.o. of my team over there, but i'm not talking to nobody. i'm keeping myself out of it. but you're right. actual innocence is one of the options. thank you, brian murphy and stan. dianne feinstein accuses the cia of spying on the senate intelligence committee, saying the cia pulled documents from their own files. this is hot stuff. florida, florida, florida. the polls have just closed in a special election for an open congressional district down in florida today. if democrat alex sink can pull

off a win here, it may mean, may mean the democrats survived the gop's anti-obamacare onslaught. we all know in his plan for november. watch it. we'll see what happens. plus, you've never seen a president like this president. president obama on zach galifianakis' tongue-in-cheek web show "between two interference." watch. >> you said if you had a son you would not let him play football. what makes you think he wants to play football? what if he is a nerd like you? >> you think a woman like michelle would marry a nerd? why don't you can her if she married a nerd. >> could i? >> no, i'm not going to let you near her. >> there is more. trust me. the president definitely brought his a game. finally, the death of joe mcginniss, the hero of my youth, the guy who blew the lid on vietnam and richard nixon both. this is "hardball," the place for politics. she loves a lot of the same things you do. it's what you love about her.

but your erectile dysfunction - that could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial.

we've all heard the right wing bugle brigade out there calling for tough action against russia. but americans aren't buying it. a new pew poll out says most americans by nearly two to one say it's more important pour the united states to not get involved in this situation between russia and ukraine. 56% say we shouldn't get involved. just 29% say we should take a firm stand against russian actions. we'll be right back.

welcome back to "hardball." for years, the bipartisan senate intelligence committee has been probing the cia detention and interrogation activities during the bush years, with particular attention to brutal interrogation tactics like waterboarding. well, today in a stunning move, the chair of the committee, dianne feinstein of california accused the cia of conducting an unconstitutional search. an unconstitutional search of senate intelligence computers. in other words, spying on the staff members doing the investigating in trying to deny

those investigators documents that show the cia admitting its misconduct. >> without prior notification or approval, cia personnel had conducted a search that was john brennan's word, of the committee computers. i have grave concerns that the cia search may well have violated the separation of powers principles embodied in the united states constitution. >> dianne feinstein is a political grownup. i take her seriously. by the way, she spoke to my colleague, andrea mitchell who interviewed cia director john brennan, who denied the cia had been involved in spying, hacking or monitoring of the senate intelligence committee staff. let's hear brennan. >> as far as the allegations of, you know, cia hacking into senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth. we wouldn't do that. i mean, that's -- that's just beyond the scope of reason.

when the facts come out on this, i think a lot of people who are claiming that there has been this tremendous sort of spying and monitoring and hack willing be proved wrong. >> so here you have the senate intelligence committee chairwoman saying her committee was spied on by the cia, the very organization it's charged with overseeing. well, joining me right now is national security correspondent for mcclatchy and the chief of staff to leon panetta from 2009 to 2011 and worked on drafting the investigation agreement between the senate intelligence committee and the cia. let me go right now to jonathan on this. you broke this story. jonathan, this seems to be a fact fight, which i like. fact, is it a fact that the cia went back in and grabbed some materials, particularly the panetta report, looking at what happened with detention practices back from the committee staff that had possession of it? >> no. that allegation concerns other documents that we don't know the nature of.

that allegation from dianne feinstein. but it is a question as to i guess your definition or popular definition of monitoring. what u.s. official -- we haven't heard the cia go into any details officially of what happened. but u.s. official says what indeed the cia did was what they do in every government agency, which is to maintain logs of the use of computers, they're mandated to do this. and when they caught wind that the senate intelligence committee staff had gotten ahold of a document they thought they shouldn't have, they went back into the logs that were kept of the committee computers, went back some three years and discovered that in fact the committee staff had gotten ahold of these documents. so was it monitoring? it does seem to be that. >> jonathan, let's get it down. how could they know the committee staff had access to a document they didn't want it to have unless they hacked into or somehow got into their systems, or got into one of the people on the staff?

how could they have known that they had this information they didn't want them to have? >> what my understanding is that the committee wrote a letter to -- chairman feinstein wrote a letter to the cia i'm told back in november intimating that they had a copy of the panetta review, but not actually saying they did. and that perked up attention at the agency. and they began sort of what i guess is sort of a forensic review of the use of the computers and found out, at least that's what i'm being told, that three years earlier, the committee had gotten ahold of this draft of the report. now chairman feinstein disputes the cia's contention, or at least what we're told is the cia's belief that they shouldn't have had a copy of this, this document, that this document was in a database of documents that the cia -- >> but that's irrelevant.

look, jonathan, have i an argument with you here. it doesn't matter what the cia says. if the senate intelligence committee has the job of overseeing the cia, gets information, it's allowed to keep that information. the cia can't grab it back or block it or anything else. once they have this report by panetta, basically spilling the beans on the problems they had over there with intelligence in terms of detention and interrogation, they had a right to keep it. their job is to oversee the cia how. can the cia say we can somehow take back what we didn't want them to have? let's go to jeremy on this one. i know the constitution. the committee on intelligence, a bipartisan committee has one job. watch the cia. >> well, chris, actually. >> go ahead. >> i've been on both sides of this. i've been both chief counsel of the congressional intelligence committee on the house side and also worked at the agency.

and both institutions have incredibly important jobs. and they've got to work together to promote national security. now, in this case, i was involved in 2009 when chairman feinstein came to then director panetta and said we would like to look at these interrogation practices. remember, president obama had ended the interrogation practices. and of course, only three individuals were waterboarded and many of the interrogation practices by then were old and largely dormant. but the congressional committee said they want to look into this. so we basically opened up the archives to the cia and provide unfettered access to the committee to look into this. it's a very legitimate review. it's gone on now five years. i believe it's over 6,000 pages. i think it's in the best interests of the country and relations between congress and the cia to basically complete the review, put it out there and close this chapter. >> but what do you think about feinstein -- >> i don't think it's that. >> jeremy, i want you to answer the question. why would dianne feinstein accuse the cia of spying on her committee? >> so i think here you

reference, chris, the panetta review. i think it's actually important to have some context about what this was and what this wasn't. at the time director panetta said hey, let's keep track inside the cia of every document, all the thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of documents that were being provided to the congressional committee. let's keep track of them. let's summarize them. let's write-up short gists of those documents. at a certain point when attorney general holder authorized a criminal investigation by then acting u.s. attorney john durham to look into whether any criminal laws had been violated in the interrogation program, the agency in conjunction with doj decided to wind down the process of creating any other documents because as you know, chris that. >> could become exculpatory. and brady material, exculpatory material is not something a prosecutor wants. so that process stopped. so this document, if you will, was basically summaries of documents. they were drafts. they were incomplete.

and they were never provided to director panetta. they were never provided to the agency leadership. so to call this a secret panetta review is overstating the case. the documents were there in the database. let's say they were in the database. your question was -- >> go ahead. i want clarity here. >> so your question was -- >> the cia violate the constitution by grabbing information that was in the possession of a senate oversight committee, yes or no. >> i think we need to take a deep breath and really focus on the fax. >> that's what i'm trying to do here. did it happen or didn't it? >> let me tell you what i know of. i want to tell you what i'm aware of. the agency created documents. those documents were drafts. they were not reviewed by director panetta. the committee -- >> did the committee get ahold of them? >> the committee took those -- >> did the committee get those documents? >> i've been told that the committee took the documents back to the base. that's what senator feinstein said on the floor today. >> right, okay.

>> and then they asked the cia for them, and now they have triggered this back and forth he said she said about whether the -- >> i want to get clarity here. the committee had the material. then they asked for some sort of protocol to be met so they get permission what they already had, is that what you're saying, jeremy? and the cia director gets involve and said no, you can't have it and took some kind of step to prevent them from getting it again. >> i don't know that that's right. i don't know he took some step to prevent them from getting it. i think he had them. >> okay. thank you. we're going to keep going on this. we're going to keep going. my question is the very question raised by senator feinstein, the share of the committee, who i have always respected. simple question. did the cia violate the constitution by grabbing information back that the committee, which its job is to oversee the cia got hold of? the american people would like that committee to have this information. i can tell you that right now. thank you, jonathan landay and thank you jeremy bash. up next, the late-night comedians can't get enough of sarah palin. that's next on the side show. this is "hardball," the place for politics.

the recent increase in cafeteria prices is not cool. when you vote for flo, we'll have discounts. ice-cream discounts. multi-cookie discounts. pizza loyalty discounts! [ kids chanting "flo!" ] i also have some great ideas on car insurance. [ silence ] finding you discounts since back in the day. call or click today.

i like her.

sarah palin offered some advice to president obama regarding vladimir putin. saying the only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke. and the most shocking part of that statement is that she considers president obama a good guy. which is progress, i think. >> time for the sideshow. that was seth meyers on sarah palin's speech at cpac this weekend. she thought it would be funny, by the way, to joke about nuclear war. news flash, it's not. in fact, palin's speech was so facetious, it's hard to separate farce from fiction. she also followed ted cruz's lead with a dramatic, if you will, reading from dr. suess's "green eggs and ham," which suess famously read on the september floor in september.

here is how palin rewrote it. >> i do not like this, uncle sam, i do not like his health care scam. >> i think called him her a moron the other day. i get copying is the highest form of flattery. take a look at what jimmy fallon had to say than performance on "the tonight show" last night. >> of course it upset president obama. but the one person it really upset, sam i am. he was so annoyed that she quoted dr. suess that he issued a rebuttal of his own. yep, he said i do not like the speech you spoke. the speech you spoke was quite a joke. i found your words were lacking taste. you first hit copy, then hit paste. i would not like this on a beach, so next time write your own damn speech. >> well done. up next, polls are closed in that special congressional election down in florida today. it's a must-win for democrats who need to show they can handle the anti-obamacare onslaught

coming in november. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics.

welcome back to "hardball." it's decision time in florida tonight. polls have just closed in florida's 13th congressional district where voters are choosing a new representative to send to washington. the special election campaign has been a ferocious battle waged between the heavyweight democrat alex sink, who lost the governor's race four years ago to rick scott by a single point. and former washington lobbyist republican david jolly. and the outside groups on both sides are spending millions to win this swingingest of swing congressional seats in the ultimate swing state, of course, florida. not always harbingers of the general election, but this race is the first chance for democrats and republicans to test drive their messages for this big november. it's a must-win contest for democrats if they want to disprove the conventional wisdom out there that they're doomed in the midterm elections. and republicans have made the race ground zero for their assault on the affordable care

act, obamacare. a gop victory will say a lot about the national political environment and the moods of moderate voters, inclined to send a message to the white house. mark halperin is a senior msnbc political analyst. eugene robinson is a pulitzer prize winning writer with "the washington post." mark, it's great to have you on because you're an expert at the fine-tuning of what the meaning would be. let's try this. suppose sink survive, she beats this guy. she has great name idea, almost beating the governor down there. what do you make if it goes for her, what does it say? >> i think democrats get two big benefits. one is psychic, one is practical. the psychic one is that it will show a candidate withstand a withering assault on the affordable care act with the practical message of let's keep it, but let's fix it. and that's the message you're going hear from a lot of democrats with fuller voice if she wins. the practical benefit is also going to be the outside groups. if sink wins, a lot of these

outside groups who played heavily in this race and their contributors are going to say hey, do we really want to spend all this money? does spending all this money really make a difference. >> okay, gene, what about the other result? this is a close one. it's going to end some time tonight. my question, suppose somebody as well liked, as prestigious as alex sink loses, what does that say about the environment out there politically come november? >> well, you know, she is the better candidate in this race. it's a swing district. it's very close. in fact, republicans have a bit of an edge in that district. but if she loses, i think it would be taken as a confirmation of the republican narrative that obamacare is poison, is political poison for democrats in the fall. >> well, massive amounts of money, as i said, have flowed into this race from outside groups. it always happens in these special elections. it's coming from left and right. the national republican campaign committee and karl rove's group called american crossroad, they

have been hammering sink on health care by flooding the airwaves with ads like this one from the u.s. chamber of commerce. by the way, it's not a local chamber of commerce, it's the big lobbying operation called the chamber of commerce. let's watch. >> 300,000 americans will lose their health coverage because of obamacare. alex sink supported it, and she still does. now sink is running for congress, and she is still pushing obamacare. canceled health plans, higher premiums, medicare cuts, people losing their doctors. a disaster for families and seniors. with alex sink, the priority is obamacare, not us. >> where did they get that announcer, mark? he sounds like somebody from the dust bowl. >> he is highly aggrieved. >> what kind of voice was that? highly aggrieved was right. what do you make of that ad? coming in there to pound alex sink. she is the bad one. >> it's florida, and hard to find a district that doesn't have a lot of older voters.

it's a kind of a weird reversal in the sense that historically, we've looked at republicans as being stronger in early vote. in this case, democrats think they'll do better in the early vote. and sink needs to do well there. a lot of ballots have been cast that way. we're not sure what percentage they'll end up being. but look, republicans are going to do a bunch of advertising. and one of the heartening things for republicans, even if they lose, but especially if they win is the messaging has been pretty well coordinated. you have all these outside groups, and often it's a tower of babel. it's different messages. it's messages executed in a different away sometimes goes across currents. they have done a good job of focusing on the affordable care act that again, if she loses, i think they'll be heartened by it and take some practical leonardo lessons from. >> let me go to the question of psychology. gene, i always thought the american voter tends to be a negative voter, get rid of this guy, get rid of that guy, get rid of carter, get rid of w., though it was too late to get rid of him. we tend to drive new people into office to drive the old ones out.

it's a tough bi-election. doesn't like his policies in ukraine, doesn't like his medicare policy, doesn't like affordable care. it's just an accumulation to me, opportunity for people to hit the -- to bang on the pipes and say more hot water, or whatever they're angry about. >> you know, it, chris. on the other hand, the republican party is not exactly that popular right now either. but your point is well taken if voters are mad at everybody, you know, it's the president's party that probably suffers most. you know, win or lose, i think on both sides, the professionals are going to be look agent the results down to the precinct level to try to figure out which obamacare message played well where in front of what voters, what age groups, what race, what demographics. and they're going to try to fine-tune that for the fall. >> i think one of the things you

said, and i think it's objectively true. i think alex sink is a heavyweight candidate, close to the top as a quality candidate for congress. well-known, respected. and if she loses, that's going to hurt. thank you, mark halperin as always for your expertise, and eugene robinson. up next, president obama goes between the interference on zach galifianakis's funny or die web show. >> the law ensures you can't discriminate against you if you have a preexisting condition anymore. >> yeah, but what about -- what about this, though? >> that's disgusting. how -- how long have you had that? >> oh, just four months. >> really? >> spider bites. i got attacked by spiders. >> zach, you need to get that checked right away. you ned to get on healthcare.gov, because that's one of the most disgusting things i've ever seen. [ molly ] this is one way to keep your underwear clean.

here's another. try charmin ultra strong. thanks mom! make me proud honey! [ female announcer ] charmin ultra strong has a duraclean texture and it's four times stronger than the leading bargain brand. enjoy the go with charmin ultra strong.

we are back. well, the president made an unusual media appearance today. zach galifianakis' online parody interview show "between two interference" on the comedy website funny or die. well, the web series is known for its awkward, even cringe-inducing interviews with celebrities like ben stiller and justin bieber. president obama was no exception. >> where are you planning on building your presidential library? hawaii or your home country of kenya? because both places seem like they would be -- >> zach, that's a ridiculous question. >> you know, not to bring up the birth certificate thing, but you never really did produce. >> where is your birth certificate? >> i don't want to show anybody my berth setter cal. >> what is embarrassing about it? >> my weight. it says i was born 7 pounds, 800 ounces. you know what i would do if i were president, mr. president? i would make same sex divorce illegal. then see how bad they want it.

>> i think that's why you're not president. and that's a good thing. >> you said if you had a son, you would not let him play football. what makes you think that he would want to play football? what if he was a nerd like you? >> do you think a woman like michelle would marry a nerd? why don't you ask her whether she thinks i'm a nerd. >> could i? >> no. i'm not going to let her near you. >> i'm not going to let her near you. that makes like he is the decider. funny or die executives reportedly pitched the white house on that idea last summer. the president taped that six and a half minute appearance two weeks ago as part of the administration's campaign to get young people to sign up for health care under the affordable care act before the march 31st enrollment deadline. and of course, the health care is a major part of the interview. >> if they get that health care insurance, kit make a big difference. they've got until march 31st to sign up. >> don't have a computer. >> call 1-800-318-2956. >> i don't have a phone. i'm off the grid. i don't want you people looking at my text, if you know what i mean.

>> first of all, zach, nobody is interested in your texts. but second of all, you can do it in person. and the law means that insurers can't discriminate against you if you have a preexisting condition anymore. >> yeah, but what about -- what about this, though? >> that's disgusting. how long have you had that? >> oh, just four months. >> really? >> spider bites. i got attacked by spiders. >> zach, you need to get that checked right away. you need to get on healthcare.gov because that's one of the most disgusting things i've ever seen. >> is your plug finally over? >> i suppose so. >> you know, dana and lizz, when i interviewed the president a couple months ago i was trying to be respectful by asking serious questions. that guy is unbelievable. since that video debuted this morning, 6.5 million people have looked at it. the white house is boasting it's the number one source of referrals to the healthcare.gov website.

it's working. dana milbank of the "washington post," and lizz winstead, co-creator of the "daily show." did you watch the whole thing? i thought it was hilarious. >> it was so hilarious. what i loved about it is you run the risk on doing a video like that where it's so funny that you forget what the message is supposed to be. or if it's a celebrity, you really talk about the celebrity and how funny it was, but then you don't talk about it was for health care. not with this, man. they nailed it. >> yeah, i think, dana, this is going to be interesting because somebody, some, you know, knuckle heads out there say the president shouldn't do this, when in fact, this is exactly what he has to do. he's up against millions of dollars of advertisement trying to croak his health care bill. he gets on and tries to snag

some free media with the younger person we're trying to get the healthy, young person to enroll. makes sense to me. i'm sure he'll be croaked for it, itself. >> yeah, you hear this whenever the president does late night shows, as if the president of the united states can't walk and chew gum at the same time. this show you reach people generally whether or not you have a message. it's not i'd like it to still be the president gets his message out by sitting down with the "washington post." i'd show him my spider bites if he'd do it. that's not how it works anymore. in this case, it achieves a policy aim. it wasn't just to show the president's personal side. it actually did something in terms of policy so you can't really fault him for going through that medium. >> well, especially -- >> i'm -- go ahead, lizz. >> i'm going to say especially when the target is young kids who look at viral videos and send them around and when they're edgy, they send them around more. and when you have, you know, 4 million, 5 million hits on a video, if you can get 10% of that for people to go, whoa, i think i will sign up and i love zach and that's hilarious and i'm going to sign up for health care, it's a win.

pinpointing who you need to sign up, it was brilliant. >> every table, every campus dining hall or anything, what do you see? anyway, here's more of president obama mixing it up with one of the stars of the "hangover" movies. you'll get it here. let's watch. >> i have to know, what is it like to be the last black president? >> seriously? what's it like for this to be the last time you ever talk to a president? >> it must kind of stink, though, you can't run three times. >> no, actually, i think it's a good idea. you know, if i ran a third time, it would be sort of like doing a third "hangover" movie. didn't really work out very well, did it? now, i have to say i've seen this show before, and some of the episodes have probably been a little bit better than this. for example, the one with bradley cooper. that was a great -- >> bradley cooper. >> he kind of carried that movie, didn't he? >> which film are you speaking of? >> those "hangover" movies. basically he carried them.

>> yeah, everybody loves bradley. good for him. >> good looking guy. >> being like that in hollywood, that's easy. tall, handsome. be short, fat and smell like doritos and try to make it to hollywood. >> smell like doritos? anyway, the one time in there, i have to stay i'm a skeptic they didn't rehearse this one line. do you think the president is quick enough to pick up on a comparison of a third term for president and a fairly unsuccessful "hangover 3"? that was neat and on point. if he is that smart, that was really spontaneous. was that written ahead or not? >> i think he put into his head at least bullet points on zach. let's be honest, "hangover 2" was a horrible movie. if you're in the zeitgeist at all, a "hangover 3" would be pretty awful. >> anyway, here's more from that interview. let's watch more.

>> which country were you rooting for in the winter olympics? >> seriously? i'm the president of the united states. what do you think, zach? >> i want to thank president obama for being on the show. >> i'm going to press this. >> don't touch that, please. thanks for the interview, and thanks for letting me shoot my show here all these years. >> you've been shooting these shows here in the diplomatic room? who gave you permission to do that? >> bush. >> seriously? who gave him clearance? >> dana milbank, lizz winstead, thanks for joining us. the fun will be right back after this. [ female announcer ] some people like to pretend a flood could never happen to them. and that their homeowners insurance protects them. [ thunder crashes ] it doesn't.

stop pretending. only flood insurance covers floods. ♪ visit floodsmart.gov/pretend to learn your risk.

let me finish tonight with the great joe mcginnis, the hot shot writer who just died. mcginnis graduated from my college, holy cross, wrote for my daily newspaper growing up, the "philadelphia inquirer." this columns were explosive. he wrote one during the vietnam war that described the soldiers working over in vietnam in grave registration. he described the bodies of u.s. servicemen being packed in tuna fish style containers being sent home to america so he could get there, as he put it, just in time for christmas. yes, he was explosive. even downright unpleasant. but so was the vietnam war he was reporting on. reporting on in a way that got

to the reality. the huge number of u.s. combat deaths in a war that was not going to end the way president johnson said it was going to end. when richard nixon ran for president the second time in 1968, mcginnis ripped the scab off that campaign almost as brutally. he showed how nixon and his people used television to repackage their candidate, to confect a new nixon for public consumption. he showed the take, the retakes, the whole inside of how nixon created the notion that he was out there meeting the people, debating the issues in what was really an extremely produced campaign performance. nixon was avoiding the kind of real debate that killed him in the '60 campaign against john f. kennedy, by pretending to be performing before a real live audience that was there to judge him. it worked. only when we read mcginnis' superb "selling of the president" did he see how it worked. i remember getting a copy of that book when i was in swaziland teaching business in the peace corps. the book made its round among the volunteers. this inside look at state of the art media politics was something new back then.

joe mcginnis was the guy who let the cat out of the bag, how it was all a big fat infomercial. he was good. he was hot. and he had the guts to get the story to the reader ahead of everybody else. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. it's a big night with breaking news out of florida at this moment. in the first congressional race of 2014 where republican david jolly has won the race for florida's 13th district. beating out democratic challenger alex sink. we will have much more on that race and its implications in a little bit. but we begin tonight with new developments in the mystery of the disappearance of malaysia airlines flight 370. information that only intensifies the confusion over what happened to commercial airliner that seemingly vanished