Skip to main content

tv   Meet the Press  MSNBC  April 27, 2015 1:00am-2:01am PDT

1:00 am
issing earthquake in nepal leaves at least 2,000 dead. we'll have the latest. also, the drone war. >> we all believed when we lose an american life. >> an american accidentally killed. is our drone war immoral or the only effective way to take out terrorists without endangering american lives. plus same sex marriage reaches the supreme court, again, and perhaps for the final time. i'll be joined by two former bush-gore foes who joined forces to fight for marriage equality. >> reporter: and hillary
1:01 am
clinton's cash controversy. how damaging will these new stories be to her candidacy. finally, washington obsession with itself. >> feels ride to have a woman follow president obama doesn't it. my interview with the white house correspondent dinner emcee. >> joining me asa hutchinson dorris concerns goodwin, alien cooper of the new york times, and matt bye of yahoo news. william welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." >> from nbc news in washington this is "meet the press." good morning before we get to all the week's politics and the discussion of america's drone war one story is dominating headlines across the globe this sunday. desperate rescue efforts are underway after the worst earthquake to hit nepal in more than 80 years. it struck near the capital, katmandu. the death toll is now over
1:02 am
2,000. it includes 17 climbers who were killed by avalanches on mount everest. one nepali journalist said this the sadness is sinking in. we have lost our temples our history history, the places we grew grew up. let's go to richard engle. >> reporter: it is now a city where people aren't living inside their homes. every green taste space has been taken over. people are afraid to go into their homes, to sleep inside their homes. behind me is one of the biggest parks in the city. but it is not just this park. people are sleeping and cooking with their feels on the sidewalks, in the middle of the streets. they are afraid there could be another major earthquake or just more of the aftershocks. we felt today one of the aftershocks when we arrived. it happen just as we land at the airport and we were going through immigration. suddenly the building started shaking. the immigration officers ran outside for cover. then they came back. i think people have been amazingly calm in the several hours we've been here.
1:03 am
we've seen people quite resilient, taking it with a take it as it comes attitude. there are still foreigners in the city and they don't have -- their situation isn't much better than the people who are living in the parks behind me. the hotels are operating at a status of kind of semievacuation. the hotels aren't kicking out their guest. they have nowhere to go and there aren't any flights out of here. so the guests are stuck there. but they don't want the guests to go up to the rooms, spebl in the upper floors. the guests are sleeping in the lobby, in some of the lower hallways. mostly they are sleeping in the gardens and in the parking lots in front of the hotel. we don't know how long this is going to last like this. people -- i've been speaking to in the park think they might be here several more days. maybe a week. but it is not just here. there is the even more mysterious situation on mount everest. some climbers have been evacuated from mount everest.
1:04 am
several, at least 17 including some americans, have been killed. but i think we'll only be learning more about exactly what happened on mount everest as those survivors come off the mountain. they can be debriefed and teams can go in to see what happened. >> richard thank you. now to the other big news of the week. one of the most striking changes in american foreign policy under president obama has been a major escalation of drone strikes on al qaeda targets in pakistan yemen, and somalia. and controversy about americans who have joined al qaeda have been targeted and killed. in fact we learned of the latest instance this week when the white house revealed that two american al qaeda leaders and two hostages, one italian and one american had been killed in drone strikes in january. yet no one in government used the word drone strikes and politicians from both parties have been strangely reluctant to even talk about the issue. >> we all bleed when we lose an american life. we all grieve when any innocent
1:05 am
life is taken. >> the who, what when where why, and how are all still murky. on january 14th american aide worker warren weinstein kidnapped in 2011 an italian, giovanni la porto held since 2012 were killed when an al kiv was hit by a cia drone strike. another american a al qaeda commander was also killed. on january 19 a second strike killed al qaeda's top spokeman adam gudan with a million dollar bounty on his head. >> he was not specifically targeted. >> the problem in these and other instances is that the cia doesn't always know who it is killing. targeting only al qaeda leadership. two years ago president obama pledged to scale back the drone campaign. >> before any strike is taken there must be near certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured.
1:06 am
>> reporter: but so-called signature strikes have continued. that's when the cia fires a missile base odd an pattern of behavior of people on the ground even if it does not know who i killing. of the 3800 people killed by drones since 2011 11% have been civilians. >> a lot of these stories you hear about in terms of oh, my goodness hundreds of civilians have been killed. a lot of that is propaganda put out by the elements opposed to the u.s. coming in and helping. >> reporter: just 14% of pakistanis view the u.s. favorably. meanwhile in washington this week and on the campaign trail arc deafening silence. rand paul staged a 13-hour filibuster two years ago to protest u.s. drone policy. this time his campaign issued just a sentence. it is a tragedy that these hostages lost their lives. my prayers and thoughts are with their family. a reminder of the collective
1:07 am
reluctance of washington to question president obama's covert war. >> i'm joined by a person who was in the room when the president made key decisions about the drone war in the early part of his president. these two strikes killed two hostages that the cia was unaware of and two al qaeda operatives that the cia was unaware of. how does that happen. >> the two operations that you talked about, in the first case there was a determination made these were military facilities against which action should be taken. that was the result of hundreds of hours ever surveillance all kinds of analysis and red teaming and that assessment was true. these were enemy facilities al qaeda compounds as the president disclosed. they were frequented by al qaeda leadership and therefore legitimate military targets. that assessment was correct. the president also has publicly
1:08 am
stated the framework under custom we make the determination about collateral damage or the killing of innocents. in in case that turned out to be wrong. the standard that the president put in place is very high near certainty that there won't be death to civilians. >> this didn't meet those standards. >> the protocols were followed the standard whether or not this was a military facility where al qaeda operated out of and was a threat to our forces was accurate. but hostages were held against one of the facilities we took into action. what the president said here is we should take another look because it was a tragic accident. >> you say that the protocols -- he announced all of these in may 2013 almost two years. but it doesn't seem like many of the new protocols have been implemented. he wanted to refine and repeal
1:09 am
the war resolution itself to have to deal with this. reduction, reduced drone strikes by the end of 2014. this was done in 2015. obviously, i think the goal was when the afghanistan war was done and the withdrawal complete the drone program would maybe completely end or nearly enfrom move from the cia and pentagon. obviously we didn't withdraw from afghanistan. why didn't we move to the pentagon? >> we have oversight of those operations. >> there is? >> that is correct. >> a lot of people don't belief that. >> there is oversight over these programs. number two the framework is in place. and if indeed the standard by which the government makes a decision whether or not to take a strike is near certainty, near certainty whether or not there will be injuries to a civilian in this case that protocol was followed and it turn out to be inaccurate. the president asked for a review in this circumstance as to why that turned out to be inaccurate. but there is no doubt about the
1:10 am
effectiveness of these programs or the necessity of these operations. >> you don't think these drones of killing terrorists with drones, unmanned isn't making more terrorists? >> that has been a concern for some time. >> i don't think that is the case. this is what i think is the case. comprehensive evident by the united states against al qaeda and its leadership has resulted in a safer america. that in fact we have been able to decimate al qaeda's leadership, that we've been able to reduce the threat to our forces in afghanistan and our interests around the world and in the united states. my own judgment is that ab isn't these operations like the president described object thursday absent these kinds of operations, a comprehensive effort against al qaeda there would have been further action against u.s. interests perhaps at the homeland. i don't have any doubt about that. >> let's talk about the constitutional rights of the two americans turned al qaeda operatives. the legal situation here is murky. according to the president they didn't know they were targeting,
1:11 am
that these two individuals would be there. had they known these two americans turned al qaeda operatedives were there would the strikes have happened? >> let's go through the analysis. these two al qaeda senior operatives were not targeted. >> had they been known to be there, would this drone strike have happened? >> it's go through that. they were not targeted. what was targeted was the afghanistan facility in the war theater. secondly an american citizen who goes abroad and wages war against the united states as the president said in his speech said does not get a she had. >> no due process. >> no more -- in the example that the president gave no more than a sniper inquiring on a crowd does not get immunity or a shield against being taken out by a s.w.a.t. team in the united states. they were not targeted.
1:12 am
they were in the military facility. if the united states decides to take action against a american there are processes in place that allows that. >> had we known there were americans there the drone strike would have been at least delayed until they got the proper protocol. >> there would have been a review -- an additional review by the attorney judge and justice department with respect to ensuring that the constitutional and statutory rights of those individuals were protected. >> final question do you believe this was an intelligence fail oou? >> this is not a raid against a military facility. it was based on hundreds of hours of intelligence. and the assessment that it was an al qaeda compound in the military war zone was correct. secondly with respect to the near certainty standard with respect to not having civilian
1:13 am
casual tees. in that case here it turns out not to be correct. and that's why the president asked for a review. a. >> but is it a failure in intelligence. >> i said the protocols were followed and it was accurate with respect to whether or not this was an al qaeda facility. but in fact there were hostages being held there. now, it is difficult to know that obviously. i spent a lot of time for example, working on the hundred for bin laden. it took us years over the course of two administrations to find him. he is a very tough business. and if you are looking for again, as tragic as this was, two things this is very important to protecting the united states and secondly and if you are looking for accuracy you are not going to find it in the war setting. i'm now joined by mike azello an expert on drone warfare. mr. zenko, welcome to "meet the press." let me ask you this. the drone program as it stands now, is it as necessary and successful as you heard it
1:14 am
outlined by mr. donin just now? >> that outline presumes the assumption that the united states must be continuously using military force against a wide away of militant and terrorist organizations. once you start with that assumption i would say the by father policy choices the white house presents is you can either have a massive military occupation like iraq or you can conduct your own strikes in which case they become particularly wise and ethical. i would say that the real question is why is it that the united states has been conducting these strikes since november 3rd 2002 50 under president bush. 365 under president obama. and the groups that the united states has been trying to defeat or eliminate either stay the same in size grow or move to other countries. the real question is how effective has this been as part of the comprehensive strategy that mr. donin claems the united states has employed. >> what is the unintended consequence, do you believe, of being able to engage militarily
1:15 am
without -- basically with robots with a robot, with a drone, without any potentially risking blood and treasure when it comes to a military hit? >> compared to all other weapons platforms drones have inherent advantages. they can persist over targets for long time. they are responsive in terms of putting a munition on top of a facility or a car or an individual. obviously, i don't place u.s. service members at any degree of risk. subsequently since the u.s. sirser first had this capability it significantly lowers the threshold for when policy makers will author the oou use of force. there have been 325 drone strikes in pakistan. no president would have authorized 425 manned aircraft raids into pakistan. it changes the kak calculus as to when officials will authorize the use of force. >> is there an alternative to
1:16 am
drones that will be easier to sell to policy makers perhaps that are skeptical to what we are doing and frankly somewhat -- i don't know if you call pakistan as a full-fledged ally but to keep an ally like pakistan from being too upset about it? ? >> again, you are assuming the you united states must be using military force. once you make in a assumption the drones become the preferred method. the question is how are these being used and coordinated with the other elements of power. president obama had a fascinating observation the other day when he said we need to start thinking about isolation and countertrirm and think about education. that's great to realize six years into his administration but we seem to fall back on the default tactic as the method we use. and the drone has become the face of u.s. foreign policy not just in the countries with
1:17 am
receiving the strikes but around the world. >> right now, the u.s. is the lone country using the drones as much as it is. what happens when other countries start using drones for their own military use? >> these are prolittle rating slowly. but other countries have deployed them in some instances. the british, the israelis as well. but president obama has correctly stated that the united states is setting precedents and principles that they hope other countries will adhere to. the problem is that the absence of clarity or transparency in these precedents or principles and the clear fact that the outlined guidance that president obama put forth in may 2013 is not directly guiding u.s. policy -- there is a gap between how the u.s. justifies the use of drones and how they actually employ them. if other states follow that perceived hypocrisy gap i think that will be devastating for foreign policy interests and global security in general. >> mike i appreciate you coming
1:18 am
on "meet the press" ander for sharing your view. >> thank you. >> when we come back the legal odd couple, they are fight wish your skin could bounce back like it used to? new neutrogena hydro boost water gel. with hyaluronic acid it plumps skin cells with intense hydration and locks it in. for supple, hydrated skin. hydro boost. from neutrogena.
1:19 am
you know, in any job any profession image matters. i want some gray...but not too much. only touch of gray uses oxygen to gently blend away some gray but not all for that perfect salt and pepper look. satisfaction guaranteed. just you and the look you want. just for men touch of gray if your purse is starting to look more like a tissue box... you may be muddling through allergies. try zyrtec® for powerful allergy relief. and zyrtec® is different than claritin®. because it starts working faster on the first day you take it. zyrtec®. muddle no more™ .
1:20 am
if you want more of the 2016 presidential race, and you're watching "meet the press" so you must, right? you can have your daily dose 2016 delivered right to your inbox with our newest offering "the lid." it's got all the analysis and insights from the nbc news political unit and even kind of funny. sign up.
1:21 am
head over to our website. i promise you won't be disappointed. later in the broadcast, washington's big self-centered night. i got to catch up with cecily strong moments after her performance. >> i feel like i can hardly remember what happened when i was up there. i don't even know. i'll watch and thought oh, he did really well. moms know their family's mouths often need a helping hand. after brushing listerine® total care helps prevent cavities strengthens teeth and restores tooth enamel. it's an easy way to give listerine® total care to the total family. listerine® total care. one bottle, six benefits. power to your mouth™. and for kids starting at age six, listerine® smart rinse delivers extra cavity protection after brushing.
1:22 am
1:23 am
1:24 am
welcome back. on tuesday the debate over gay marriage heads to the supreme court again where the justices will hear arguments on whether individual states can constitutionally ban same-sex marriage. 11 states in the district of columbia passed legislation to make same-sex marriage legal. another 25 have been forced to legalize it by court decisions. at the same time there's been a dramatic change in public opinion. 59% are in favor of same-sex marriage up from 41% five years ago. my next two guests david boise and ted olson played a crucial
1:25 am
role acting as co-lead counsel. what was surprising at the time olson the conservative and bois the liberal were old foes having faced off in bush versus gore. they co-authored "redeeming the dream the case for marriage equality." welcome to "meet the press." let me start with the prop 8 case. why do you believe the supreme court stopped short of basically making it law of the land and only targeted california? >> i think there is a legal reason and perhaps a policy reason. the legal reason was under supreme court precedent the people who were appealing that decision really didn't have standing. they weren't injured. they weren't adversely affected by it. they had a political point of view that they thought these marriages ought to be banned. from a legal standing constitutional standing under supreme court precedent, they shouldn't have been there.
1:26 am
now, there may have been a policy reason to reenforce that, which was to let the progress develop a little bit further. we had less than half the country with marriage equality. overwhelmingly, it's taken over the country. just in the last couple of years you've seen a tremendous movement that i think makes it easier now for the supreme court to make that total decision. >> is it possible the supreme court could basically, i hate to use this phrase but split the baby and say that states have to recognize, all 50 states have to recognize same-sex marriages but individual states cannot issue licensees? >> i don't believe that's going to happen. as david pointed out when our case the proposition 8 case came to the supreme court the next day the court heard the defense, federal defense of marriage case. they were both decided the same day. what the supreme court said in the defense of marriage case which was called the windsor case was that the laws like the
1:27 am
federal statute that restricted rights of individuals who wish to get married to the same person was demeaning and disrespected their relationship. it took away their constitutional rights. if you read what the supreme court said in that case there is really no other way for the supreme court to come out in the case that's up for argument on tuesday. the first part of that case is whether states have to recognize the rights of individuals who wish to get married in that stays. i think that will end the debate there. >> it does seem obvious you can see the federal government saying you've got to recognize this is the way it works. you don't think they'll draw a states line here? >> no, i don't. because what the supreme court said in the federal case, they were talking not so much they mention states rights, but they were talking about the impact on the individuals in a relationship and the children of those relationship how it took away their rights. it made their relationships less equal, second class. those sorts of things.
1:28 am
we don't do this in this country. we don't take aware of rights of individuals and put them in a box and say that they are less equal than other people. >> you hear this marringargument from the right that same-sex marriage will be constitutional can you constitutionally ban polygamy? >> first of all, that is a silly argument, it really is. this has to do with equal rights. what we are saying is you can't deprive a loving couple of marriage simply based on their sexual orientation. just like you can't deprive a loving biracial couple of the right to get married. supreme court held that many, many years ago. what you have in a polygamy case is a situation where multiple partners and there is all sorts of evidence that has harmful effects on some of the people participating and the children. there is a policy reason. more important there is a real
1:29 am
reason, and that is you are not discriminating against everybody. everybody gets to have one spouse. as long as you don't restrict it based on race gender, sexual orientation everybody is treated equal under the constitution. what you can't do is you can't say some people are second class and so some people can marry the person they love, one man, one woman but two men, two women can't get married because of that ir their sexual orientation or gender. >> the only overwhelming evidence we tried is sexual orientation is something immutable immutable immutable immutable immutable characteristic of an individual. polygamy has nothing to do with that. >> swing vote. swing vote or votes on this issue? >> if you look at the decisions that the supreme court made in the defensive marriage case and
1:30 am
the earlier cases that we cited in our briefs, there's five votes including justice kennedy justice ginsberg and justice justice once the case was finally decided because of the inherent rights of individuals, we can count the justices that already decided the defensive marriage case and their explanation why they decided that. >> does it matter if it's 5-4 or 6-3? does it have a different impact? >> i think civil rights cases ought to be decided 9-0, 8-1 the way the civil rights decisions were largely made. it sends a message this country doesn't tolerate discrimination. i think the more justices that sign on, the better. i think if you just look at, you
1:31 am
are reading tea leaves, look at windsor. i think it's very hard to see how any one of the five majority justices would decide this case differently. on the other hand, i think it's hard to figure out for sure that you can get any one of the four. >> always a pleasure. we bring in the panel now. we've got the republican governor of arkansas asa hutchinson. i went through the states' rights argument on this front. do you believe -- you're an attorney i believe. do you believe there is a line you can draw between saying the federal question is states have to recognize versus the question of whether states have to authorize? >> i thought your arguments were persuasive in the previous discussion. i think there is a way the court can do that. if you look at the windsor case that was spoken of, it was not just how gays were treated that was part of the decision, but
1:32 am
also a deference to states' definition of marriage. that's been historically a recognition by the supreme court. what has changed, the constitution hasn't changed. a lot of things have happened in the state courts. a majority of the states that have moved toward recognizing gay marriage has done it through judicial fiat versus the legislative process. so the courts really are forcing this issue as to what the supreme court will do. i think it's unpredictable. i think they could continue to give some deference to the states but i do think we'll probably have to clearly recognize what happens in another state. so we'll wait and see. as governor -- >> this became interesting for you. you put it in personal terms. your son, this is when the religious freedom bill you were going to sign, your son petitioned you to veto the bill. you, yourself said on same-sex marriage this is a generational
1:33 am
divide. >> well, it is. it's a divide politically. it's a divide geographically. i'm from arkansas and arkansas has a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. that is my conviction and my belief but i also recognize if we talk about this issue we need to talk about it in terms of tolerance, we need to talk about it in terms of nondiscriminatory policy, the diversity of the work place that's the point what is making with my son that it is a generational divide. >> doris, you are of course an historian. any movement moves so fast as the acceptance of same-sex marriage? >> it is astonishing. when you think about only a decade ago president clinton signed the defensive marriage act and you get civil unions in vermont and massachusetts saying same-sex and other states following one after another. i think it suggests something really important about our civic
1:34 am
light. where does prejudice come from when one group, one class one race, one people with sexual orientation has little to do with the others and they characterize them and stereotype them. gay people are now working with all sorts of people. their children are going to school with the children of state people. they are part of your neighborhood. it's harder to say they are other. you feel a sense of their desires, their passions. that makes a heavy civic life. i think it's a wonderful mark not just about gay marriage and gay rights, but about what can happen in a society when we stop being behind tribal barriers. it's a good thing. >> on this issue, it has been, you contact argue driven by young folks. >> very much so. what is also interesting is that i think so many more -- so much of this is experiential. particularly when you look at politicians. people say what is opposed to this until my son told me he was gay. >> rob portman. >> and that's what i think that
1:35 am
has been one of the driving forces. as soon as you can put a face on an issue that before had been so soes aso esotric to a lot of people. >> the assumption is it will likely legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states. a year from then the republican party will meet and have their decision. will they have a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage? do you think it will end up where the nominee says take it out? >> obviously depends on hoe your nominee is. as i said before here and elsewhere republicans are on the wrong side and it moved too quickly, but they put themselves in a very bad position because honestly, if we are honest about this, no one in the political establishment should be patting themselves on the back. one reason it moved so quickly
1:36 am
because the public was way out front. dragged them. hubert humphrey walked out of the convention over civil rights. republicans were not necessarily so far behind where democrats were, but they are making this an issue that will set them back years to come. put a little pause button here. coming up the clinton foundation money. is this latest story a major problem for
1:37 am
1:38 am
1:39 am
welcome back. we are two weeks into the hillary clinton presidential campaign. republicans and journalists have been working themselves into a frenzy over a new book on the clintons that's about to be released. it's called "clinton cash." alleges a too-cozy relationship between bonations to the clinton foundation and clinton family speaking fees and decisions made by hillary clinton's state department. let me bring in the panel to discuss how damaging they all think this is. helene, let me start with you. the allegations there is a and c. there's been an argument, okay, the trouble is how do you prove the connection "new york times" your paper did a big story on this russian issue having to do with uranium purchase. there is not a connection but there is the appearance of impropriety. >> that it's biggest problem. it takes us back to the 1990s.
1:40 am
it feeds this aura a lot of people have about the clintons. we've gone through six years with barack obama. you haven't had that atmosphere, that aura there is something going on. people are talking about the lincoln bedroom again. people are talking about -- i don't think this is necessarily that huge a deal, but i think that this feeds a problem she is going to continue to have. it brings up again the sort of why didn't they see this earlier? why didn't they take steps to associate themselves -- soon as she left the state department she went back to accepting the clinton foundation that had distanced itself from this and went back to taking some of these donations. why didn't they force this? everybody knew hillary clinton was going to run. >> that's mind boggling. matt bai, jonathan chase no conservative pundit, this is what he wrote, "all sorts of unproven worst-case scenario questions float around, but the
1:41 am
best-case scenario is bad enough. the clintons have been disorganized and greedy. the news about the clintons flushes out their lack of interest in policing serious conflict of interest problems that arise in their overlapping roles." >> what a happy coincidence as a publishing schedule and news cycle. i don't think any one was voting for hillary clinton or is going to because of the threat she poses to the governing status quo and the political establishment. does it hurt her with her voters that perception? she is not the reformist presence a barack obama was and is. i do think as helene says it's the arrogance of it. i think it's something that the e-mails, the idea you never admit guilt you never say you're sorry, you kill the messenger. >> they have this whole say that say it's a hatchet job
1:42 am
masquerading as a book. it is a standard play book. >> it is a standard play book. the idea you have to fight ten times harder. that it's old line about bringing a knife to a gun fight? i think that doesn't wear well in presidential politics and particularly doesn't wear well when it's something people are already concerned about. >> doris eight years ago democrats were hammering publically about this. this time they are doing it privately. i heard an earful last night from various democrats, some who work in the clinton campaign that said why is she still taking foreign donations? why is the foundation -- they narrowed it down, now they are going to take them from european countries in canada. they got rid of some of the despot states. >> i think what still boggles the mind, why doesn't hillary deal with this herself right now. when you have mitt romney saying this is bribery bribery means theft robbery means taking favors to do something corrupt. you can't let that charge stand and simply say, it's the wrong people telling it. when teddy roosevelt was assumed
1:43 am
similarly in 1904 giving favors to big corporations and promising he wouldn't do anti-trust, he gave up. everybody said don't say anything. he stands up and says if this charge were true, i would be infamous. it's false. it's wickedly false. that ended. he said you give me evidence. no evidence. he comes off with flying colors. i think she has to answer this herself. >> governor hutchinson you're from the clinton's home state. they had accusations thrown at them and politically always survived. >> does it impact her base, impacts the middle. it reminds everyone that everything about the clintons is click kated. this story has three ramifications that bear looking at. awful, ungodly amount of money involved in these transactions. it involves a foreign source. then it involves high positions in government important decisions.
1:44 am
no evidence of a quid pro quo. republicans need to be careful not to overstate the case. it reminds us that clintons are complicated. they tend to make mistakes. >> it will be interesting to see how much more of this happens before democrats go as public as they did when i was talking to them last night. when we come back on this wee my cut hurts. mine hurt more. mine stopped hurting faster! neosporin plus pain relief starts relieving pain faster and kills more types of infectious bacteria. neosporin plus pain relief kills the germs. fights the pain.
1:45 am
if your purse is starting to look more like a tissue box... you may be muddling through allergies. try zyrtec® for powerful allergy relief. and zyrtec® is different than claritin®. because it starts working faster on the first day you take it. zyrtec®. muddle no more™ .
1:46 am
welcome back. if you don't know garry trudeau
1:47 am
you definitely know his work. he is the pulitzer prize-winning cartoonist and create are of the comic strip doonesbury. earlier this month, you may have heard about him for a different!ç reason. while accepting the george polke award he criticized some of the work that appeared in the french magazine "charlie hebdo." they were victims of a terror attack in january this year. he said the cartoons wandered into the realm of hate speech. i started asking him about those comments and whether as some critics alleged about him, he felt the victims were to blame for the tragedy. >> oh not at all. i think perhaps i should have made it clear i was as outraged as the rest of the world at the time. i mourn them deeply. we are a very small fraternity of political cartoonists around
1:48 am
the globe. i created a tribute page to them on a sunday section in which i included the work of all five cartoonists including their signatures and main characters. what i didn't do is necessarily agree with the decisions they made that brought really a world of pain to france. >> is religion the red line for you? is that the issue? >> not entirely. i certainly wouldn't draw pictures of the prophet. you've done many cartoons satiri satirizing bin laden. >> what was the impetuous was it watergate, vietnam? >> i don't know what it was.
1:49 am
my career was not my idea. it was the idea of an editor who pick immediate out of my student newspaper my junior year and gave me the job i still hold. i don't know what he was thinking. i didn't have the skillset most people would associate with creating a comic strip. i think he liked my perspective. thereafter, because i had been doing it in college, i had no editor. i had no clear sense of what i could do on the comic stage and what i couldn't. so i was constantly being kicked out of newspapers. >> where does it belong? i remember growing up where there would be some newspapers it was in the funnies and "the washington post" famously put it in the "style" section. >> or the editorial page. >> where does it belong? >> i feel it belongs on the comics page for very selfish reasons that's where the readers are. jack anderson used to insist his
1:50 am
column appear on the congress page of the "the washington post" because that's where the readers were. in the early days the red lines were less clear to me. i did something incredibly inane. i put together this questionnaire with a checklist and sent it out to a dozen high-level editors around the country. i said, which of these subjects do you think are appropriate for the comic stage? marijuana, politics rock and roll. >> what year did do you this? >> i was probably 22 23. it was an inane thing to do. most of them bit. most went for it and checked the boxes. i guess you could write about marijuana. they sent back these questionnaires questionnaires. i got a letter back with no questionnaire that says it makes no difference what you write about, as long as it has a purpose and it's funny, there is no limit what you can do.
1:51 am
that is something i should have figured out on my own. but what is young. >> you can watch my entire interview with garry trudeau and hear more about doonesbury and how hunter s. thompson was a huge inspiration for him and why he tells young cartoonists why they might want to consider a different path. >> up next the star of last night's correspondence dinner. >> did you know they have massage seats available on those trains? all you need to do is sit in front of joe biden. many wrinkle creams come with high hopes, but hope... doesn't work on wrinkles. neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair has the fastest retinol formula... to work on fine lines and even deep wrinkles in just one week. neutrogena®.
1:52 am
1:53 am
nervous whitening will damage your teeth? introducing
1:54 am
listerine® healthy white™. it not only safely whitens teeth... ...but also restores enamel. lose the nerves and get a healthier whiter smile that you'll love. listerine® healthy white™. power to your mouth™! endgame time. some of our panel are bleary-eyed this morning. last night was the white house correspondence dinner. helene didn't have to party because "the new york times," they want no part of that dinner. there were some fun highlights from president obama and cecily strong. >> after the mid-term elections my advisors asked me mr. president do you have a bucket list? i said well, i have something that rhymes with bucket list. take executive action on
1:55 am
immigration? bucket. i've got to stay focused on my job because for many americans this is still at the time of deep uncertainty. for example, i have one friend just a few weeks ago she was making millions of dollars a year and she is now living out of a van in iowa. >> it is great to be here at the washington hilton. it's something a prostitute might say to a congressman. hillary's campaign slogan is, it's your time which is what i assume she says in a mirror while dead lifting 200 pounds. after six years in office your approval rating is at 48%. not only that, your gray hair is at 85%. your hair is so white now, it can talk back to the police. >> right after her stand-up routine i caught up with cecily strong to see how she felt about this performance. grade the president last night?
1:56 am
>> in my -- i think he always does very well. especially in that world. when he is making a speech and being funny, that's what he does really really well. >> i heard this from other comedians, though say the single hardest person to follow is the president of the united states. >> i heard that. >> did you feel it? >> i did. it was really good, wasn't it. they were really liking him. >> he tells a joke, did you say oh, geez, crossing that one off the list? >> i kept checking in with my writers. i would go, should we keep kit cut it? there were two i chose to cut. >> you seemed cool as a cucumber. >> i think i'm a good faker. i always have been. somehow. i don't know how that's worked out for me. it's like maybe of the best thing i have going for me i honestly, i feel like i can hardly remember what happened when i was up there. i don't even know. i'll watch back and be like, oh i thought that went really well.
1:57 am
>> will you watch your performance? >> i think i would watch this one. i would be curious. honestly, i couldn't gauge it. >> will you do it now? >> no. i won't do it now. i'll start drinking now. then i'll start thinking later. >> let me bring in the panel. a few of you were there governor do you think -- what do the folks in arkansas think of this washington festivities whatever you want to call it oscar night in washington? >> peculiar. probably not the best politics to be here. >> right. it's going to knock you down on approval rating or two? >> you never know. you salute the media. journalists are doing an extraordinary job in a dangerous world. secondly it's the time to really salute the president and it's a lot of irreverence. at the same time, you have washington coming together. if washington comes together, it's not a bad thing. >> doris, there's always been hammering my own colleague tom brokaw feels the thing has gotten too big.
1:58 am
i missed when it was a washington dinner. when our friends in new york and l.a. got involved they are the ones that made this dinner too big. what do you think of that? >> i think there was something when it was just the correspondents and the media. who is the star running it? nonetheless there is something about the self-deprecateing humor everyone wants to hear. my favorite moment was somebody said to lincoln you're two faced he said if i had two faces you think i would wear this face? >> that would have killed last night. >> think also that here was a woman mc, 50 years ago women couldn't go to the white house correspondents dinner until jfk said he wouldn't go unless a woman came. we made two in the last five years when it comes to women progress. what did you think? >> you know i'm not allowed to go. it's killing me sitting here listening to you guys about your
1:59 am
good time. you all got dressed up. i thought obama was really funny. i loved the praying five times a day line. >> it is funny. he always does a muslim joke and it always kills. >> your favorite part? >> i hate the whole thing. it's a job. >> i hate the whole thing. >> did you go? >> he went. >> it's a job's program for the low-rent tux industry in washington. this president is probably the funniest president of our lifetime. whatever anyone else thinks he has great comic timing. >> george w was funny. the problem is everybody got mad at the funny and the whole wmd thing. >> it wasn't funny. >> it wasn't funny then and then he got scared of it. >> as you know if it's sunday, it's meet the press.
2:00 am
good morning. i'm bipartisan i'm betty nguyen. despair is what they're experiencing. power of nepal earthquake was e equivalent to 20 atomic bombs. the indian express is leading with this. days after the 7.9 magnitude earthquake a massive search and rescue effort is underway. brick by brick they are working as fast as they can through ne

76 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on