isn't it still better, i argue, than going to a middle east ground war? well, today president obama revealed the tragic news of the hostages' deaths. let's watch. >> as president, and as commander in chief, i take full responsibility for all our counterterrorism operations, including the one that inadvertently took the lives of warren and giovanni. i profoundly regret what happened. on behalf of the united states government, i offer our deepest apologies to the families. it is a cruel and bitter truth that in the fog of war, generally, and our fight against terrorists specifically, mistakes, sometimes deadly mistakes, can occur. but one of the things that sets america apart from many other nations, one of the things that makes us exceptional, is our willingness to confront squarely our imperfections and to learn from our mistakes. >> richard engel is nbc's chief foreign correspondent. richard, how'd this happen? >> well, it seems that in january, according to u.s. officials who we've been speaking to at the pentagon and i've been speaking to by phone from here in italy, there were two separate drone strikes in mid-january. these appear to have been what are generally referred to as signature strikes, which means that the drone operators, in this case, the cia, didn't know exactly who they were targeting. they just knew they were targeting what they believed to be al qaeda compounds, so they believe they were legitimate targets, and that the people inside them would be al qaeda members or al qaeda affiliates. in the first compound that was struck, along the afghan/pakistan border, inside pakistan, the two hostages were being held, the cia didn't know they were being held there. one italian, one american, the american, dr. warren weinstein. one other american was also in that first target. an american al qaeda member, named ahmed farouk, who was the number two al qaeda leader in pakistan. then a few days after this first drone strike, also mid-january, this year, earlier this year, there was a second drone strike and another american, another american al qaeda member, named adam gadahn, was killed in that strike. so you had two different strikes by the cia, earlier this year, in which two hostages were inadvertently killed, and two american al qaeda members were killed. apparently also inadvertently. >> do we expect any change many our policy, or is that sort of public relations to say, we're going to review our policy? >> reporter: well, i have not heard anyone talking about seriously reviewing the policy. when we speak to military officials, they say, well, this wasn't really our operation, this was a cia operation, perhaps there needs to be better visibility on how those two agencies de-conflict their missions. generally, it is the cia that carries out operations in pakistan. so there is some sort of geographic divisions among them. but i'm not hearing any serious considerations that they have to overhaul the drone program. there was no rescue attempt considered for the case of mr. winestein or the italian, because according to a d.o.d. official i spoke to, they had no real intelligence. they didn't really know where he was being held. they didn't have a starting point, so there was no way for them to look. they didn't know he was in the house. they attacked the house and then just found out after a several month review process that, in fact, these two hostages were inside. >> thank you so much, richard engel. and eerily, those two hostages that were killed were, of course, u.s. aid workers. i'm joined right now by msnbc news political director, moderator of "meet the press," chuck todd. it is something to watch a president, any president, come out and take the hit. and say, even if it was a pure thing that happens in war, it's war, people get killed in war, they weren't intended to be killed. >> it is. and he was the commander in chief. >> he could have ducked it? >> i don't think so. i think if he'd ducked it, there would be a lot of people going, how do you duck this, you're the commander in chief. i think you see people saying, you know, he didn't give specific authority on this strike, because we hunt -- you know, he doesn't necessarily say, yes, no, and specific >> chuck, what do you think of this? this afternoon, white house spokesman josh earnest said the standards in place for the use of drones would be re-examined. richard engel's a little skeptical about this from over there. let's watch. >> in the aftermath of a situation like this, it raises legitimate questions about whether additional changes need to be made to those protocols. again, to put it more bluntly, we have national security professionals diligently followed those protocols based on everything we know so far. they followed those protocols, and yet it still resulted in this unintended, but very tragic consequence. and that's why the president has direct ds his team to conduct a review of this particular operation, to see if there were lessons learned, reforms that we can implement to this process. >> chuck, you pointed out before we started tonight, there is a big debate about the moral use of drugs and the question of what's the fallout when you do it. you kill people, everybody knows about it. >> and there's going to be plenty of pakistanis that see this and say, oh, americans are outraged when an american dies accidentally -- >> but we've been done doing that over there. >> we've been doing that over there for a lot longer. boy, you want to unwind this story. the president had to say these were accidentals, including the two al qaeda operatives that are american citizens, because you need to have -- there are still legal questions about -- >> are we allowed under the -- i argue this was my family members. are we allowed under the current reading of the constitution to kill americans who have defect requested. >> i don't believe the obama administration believes this. >> they don't believe it's okay? >> there's a legal debate, is this a war? if it was a war, that's one thing, right? it depends on the definition of what the battle field -- look, that's part of this legal question. that's one aspect of this. set that aside. there is the whole morality debate that we haven't had as robustly on whether the use of drones, what have we opened a pandora's box, which is, i come back to something to me that was so striking a week ago, and it got no news coverage. the secretary of navy announced, when he announced the purchase of a few new f-35 strike fighters, he said, this will be the last purchase that the navy ever makes of manned fighter jets. we are going all unmanned, all undroned. there are unintended consequences that go with this. not just the mistakes that come with striking and you had bad intelligence, you didn't know the hostages were there, but how about the fact that you make it bloodless. if you make war bloodless -- >> by our side. >> by our side. does it then make it easier to resort to a drone strike. >> who's going to resolve the question you and i just averted there a bit, the question of whether a president -- i say this as an argument -- that we have the right to nail stuff, we know is a traitor. but are you a traitor if it's not a declared war? >> look, i think this is something that congress needs to resolve. this is something i think the legal community needs to resolve. this is something the justice department -- but i think we need to have the morality debate here. because, what happens when somebody strikes us with drones? you know, this is when somebody else is acquiring the drone tech -- we're ahead of everybody else on drone technology, for now. just like we're ahead of everybody else on nukes. is this the -- there are people i've talked to who believe the proliferation of drones is worse than the proliferation of nuclear weapons, in some cases, because it could lead to an easier justification of doing military action. if there's no -- if you don't have -- if you're not risking your own blood and treasure. >> i was down in haiti the other week, two weeks, three weeks ago, and there was a guy with a drone right over the hotel, just having fun with it. the first time i'd seen one close up. >> this is a brave new world. >> thank you so much, chuck todd. in his comments today, president obama paid tribute to the two captured aid workers, as i said, they are aid workers, who were killed in that strike. >> today, we join their families and friends in honoring warren and giovanni, two humanitarians who came from different countries, but who were united by a spirit of service. there could be no starker contrast between these two selfless men and their al qaeda captors. warren's work benefited people across faiths. meanwhile, al qaeda boasted to the world that it held warren, citing his jewish faith. al qaeda held both men for years, even as warren's health deteriorated. they deprived these men of precious, irreplaceable years with family who miss them terribly. >> in a statement put out by elaine winestein, the wife of the american aid worker who was killed, she faulted some elements of the u.s. government in negotiating for her husband, but she said the ultimate responsibility for her husband's death rests with his captors. quote, we do not fully understand all the facts surrounding warren's death, but we do understand that the u.s. government will be conducting an independent investigation of the circumstances. we look forward to the results of that investigation. but those who took warren captive over three years ago bear ultimate responsibility. i can assure you that he would still be alive and well if they had allowed him to return home after his time abroad, working to help the people of pakistan. u.s. congressman john delaney of maryland has worked for years to help get warren weinstein released. he joins us now along with nbc news terrorism analyst, evan cumming. tell us how you have, succinctly, tried to get him out. what was the effort like and how did the u.s. government help or not help you? >> we worked closely with the family, with elaine, who is a remarkable woman, who showed incredible strength and held her family together while she worked to try to get warren home. what we tried to do was make sure all of the assets of the u.s. government, whether they be intelligence assets or relationships with other partner nations, who have more assets on the ground in pakistan, were all working to try to get warren home. and quite frankly, where we saw gaps or where we saw problems was not the people in the u.s. government weren't trying hard as individuals, because the fbi and the state department, they were all working really hard, but i really believe, based on this experience and based on working so closely on warren's case, that we do need better coordination of all the capabilities the u.s. government has, so we can find these people. >> who's on point? who's on point? of all the agencies, if you have to find the lead, where is the lead in getting back somebody like this, one of these aid workers when they're grabbed by the terrorists? >> well, that's one of the problems, right? the fbi is on point, right, because that's their job, the state department is obviously critical. what we want to do and what we've been talking about, and i have been actually been working on legislation based on warren's situation, which we will finish, unfortunately, it won't help warren, to effectively create a hostage czar in the white house. we have a lot of czars doing all kinds of things in government, but we don't have someone on point who can cut across the bureaucracy of government and grab whatever resources and make sure it's coordinated as effectively as possible. sometimes those resources mean talking about our foreign aid program to a foreign country, who's not giving us the information we want, for example. so it's things like that, as well as our intelligence capabilities. that's what i think we need. and that's the part of this discussion that i think, you know, the discussion about drones is interesting and some of the other things are interesting, but i actually think the intelligence question, meaning, are we really doing everything we can. when you think about the enormous capabilities in the united states of america, and how many countries rely upon us, are we really bringing that all to bear, to find these americans? >> you didn't know where he was, did you? the family didn't know he was on the border there between afghanistan and pakistan? >> we expected, you know, he was captured in pakistan, and we suspected he was in that region, but you know, we didn't know where he was. which was incredibly frustrating. >> let me get to the whole geopolitics of this and the whole use of drones. you know all this about changing protocols and everything, if we're going to use drones aggressively, if we're going to use them as our main firepower in that part of the world to go after terrorist groups and knock them out at the lieutenant level, is there a way of being more careful and still getting the job done? >> i would like to enlargen that. i don't think it's just a question of drones. a few months ago, they launched a special forces operation and accidentally killed a south african hostage who wassing with held by them and we didn't know he was there either. >> but that's essential -- how do you know -- first of all, hostages are kept by the captors. if you go to kill the captors, you're going to kill, you know -- we watch in every detective movie -- every drama written for american tvs or movies or radios in the old days was about a captured person that you have to protect as you go in and raid the situation. >> and in this case, it's not that ridiculous, because ahmed farouk, the american al qaeda operative who was allegedly killed alongside warren weinstein, he was featured in al qaeda propaganda videos, in very close proximity, you could say, to the hostages. so the idea that he would be in physical close proximity to them isn't ridiculous. it isn't ridiculous. look, there is a very difficult science. this is not easy. no matter what we do, whether we use drones, whether you use special forces, there are going to be casualties in this war. i think we have to ask ourselves, ultimately, was there any way of getting mr. weinstein back or the italian hostage back alive without doing something like this? and i think realistically, the answer is no. >> thanks so much, u.s. congressman john delaney and evan kohlmann, right there. thank you, both gentleman. coming up, ten days into her campaign, there's a flood of questioning headlines today about hillary clinton, the clinton foundation, and as overseas money. tonight, we're going to look at the facts and find out how worried the clinton campaign should be and how much of this is really and how much of it is vital. plus, president obama told me this week that senator elizabeth warren is, quote, wrong when it comes to that massive trade deal he's pushing. tonight, elizabeth warren's response from last night. and the florida mailman, actually is a mailman, who land ed that gyrocopter at a u.s. capitol joins us tonight. a u.s. congressman says if it were up to him, that copter would be shot down. the pilot, 63-year-old doug hughes is here tonight. talk about blaming the messenger, congressman! the majority of democrats in the senate finance committee have voted to put the trade deal on fastrack, so all you're hearing about all progressives are against this is not accurate. this is "hardball," the place for politics. 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™ . loretta lynch has now been confirmed by the united states senate to be the next attorney general of this country. the vote was pretty strong, 56-43. ten republicans joined all the democrats in support of her confirmation, including several republicans facing, of course, re-election next year in states that president obama won. isn't that convenient? the only senator not to vote, this is ugly, ted cruz. president obama cheered lynch's confirmation late today. >> i want to say, publicly, for the first time, that i've been looking forward to saying this, that i am very pleased that loretta lynch has now been confirmed -- [ cheers and applause ] >> what room was that in? anyway, lynch's confirmation ends the longest wait of any attorney general nominee in 30 years. we'll be right back. female announcer: sleep train's interest free for 3 event! is ending soon! get three years interest-free financing on beautyrest black, stearns & foster serta icomfort even tempur-pedic. plus, get free delivery, free set-up, and free removal of your old mattress and sleep train's 100-day low price guarantee. but hurry! sleep train's interest free for 3 event is ending soon. ...guaranteed! ♪ sleep train ♪ ♪ your ticket to a better night's sleep ♪ welcome back to "hardball." back in february, "the washington post" ran a big story that the clinton foundation was taking money from foreign governments, while hillary clinton was secretary of state. it sparked a wave of press coverage and attacks from clinton's critics, who raised concerns about conflicts of interest. now, just ten days into clinton's presidential run, the wave has become a flood. and here we go. the scrutiny over the clinton's financial dealings, their speaking fees, government work, charity organization work, and private connections has now hit every major news organization in america. the mainstream media is on it. the front page of "the washington post" reports today that, quote, bill clinton was paid at least $26 million in speaking fees by companies and organizations that are also major donors to his foundation. "the new york times" ran a massive story today on how cash flowed to the clinton foundation during secretary clinton's tenure, from the russians while they were seeking u.s. approval on a sensitive deal to control large swaths of u.s. uranium deposits. those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the clintons, despite an agreement mrs. clinton had struck with the obama white house to publicly identify all donors. then there's this. reuters reports today, also, that hillary clinton's family charities are re-filing at least five annual tax returns after a reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments. that means overseas governments. in all instances, clinton's camp has denied any wrongdoing and late today, they put out a lengthy response to "the new york times" story, noting that secretary clinton was not directly involved, actually, in the review process on that uranium deal. let's dive right in here, stephanie shriok is president of the pro-hillary group, emily east list, and jonathan allen, chief correspondent at vox. stephanie, i'll give you the first swat at this. there's a lot of things out there, money, big speaking fees, the clinton foundation has been enormously successful in raising money all around the world. hillary clinton was secretary of state. bill clinton was former president and hillary clinton may very well be the next president. where do you see in this reasonable, well, questions about possible conflict of interest and responsibilities? your thoughts? >> well, what i really see in this is a very clear orchestrated republican strategy, when you don't have much to offer in policies that the voters want, you attack your likely opponent. and they know they've got to tear her down. and that is precisely what we're seeing. we're seeing it in this book that has been written by discredited author, that is in media outlet after media outlet, being discredited piece by piece, and this is just the beginning, chris. we'll see a lot of these attacks, because this is what the republicans have right now as a strategy. >> if you can imagine a republican running an international global organization, a foundation to help little countries with big problems, and also the guy running it was making a lot of money in speaking fees from the donors, would you see conflict there, if it were republicans doing the same thing? >> well -- >> would you see conflict with a republican doing this? >> the guy we're talking about is if the former president of the united states, who has an incredibly powerful story to tell. and the foundation, frankly, has done immense -- incredible work around the globe, particularly when you're talking about empowering women and girls, as well as, you know, eradicating, working to eradicate hiv/aids. so this is a foundation that has done -- >> hey, i believe in the cause. i think it's a great cause. but let me ask you this, i've got to get a little coronet here, it's my job, and i don't mind doing it, stephanie. it is this. i heard a roar of disapproval when ronald reagan took that 2 million bucks from the japanese after he left office because people said he was kind to them in trade negotiations. i don't know if your voice was there, but a lot of my friends' voices were loud and i'm wondering if we're cutting this loudly. your thoughts and i'll get back to the bad guys here. >> well, i think -- >> what did you think about reagan grabbing 2 million bucks -- >> the precedent has been set. you just mentioned another president. this is -- >> is it fair? >> -- often presidents of the united states have great stories to tell and they get speaking fees for doing it. >> 2 million bucks! >> what ronald reagan has done -- >> no, stephanie. have you ever heard of anyone paying 2 million bucks to hear a good story? maybe 2 million ducks -- that's a hell of a story! mark twain, i don't think would have gotten 2 million bucks. jonathan, let me go to you before we get to the republicans. these papers, "the post," "the times," is it all because that conservative guy wrote that book that we still haven't read yet? >> of course not. >> it isn't connected? >> it's connected in that he's working with some of these big newspapers on the particular set of things that he did research on. the story about the foundation has been unfolding for a long time. there are a couple of stories that are interesting story lines. >> what's potentially corrupt? >> so, what's potentially corrupt is that there are a number of corporations and individuals with business before the u.s. government, while hillary clinton was secretary of state, and if she becomes president, who have given tons of money to the clinton foundation. and by the way, they can give a lot more to the foundation than they can give in hard money to a presidential campaign. >> why do they give money? >> for access. for access, and in hopes of favor. that does not mean that those favors were done. what we haven't seen here is any smoking gun. but we're not fighting a legal battle. hillary clinton's not fighting a legal battle. republicans aren't fighting a legal battle. they're fighting a battle over weather the presidency of the united states is a power that they want to give to hillary clinton, and one of the questions is, who influences her and how do they influence her? and so that's why you're seeing all this reporting on this. that's why you're seeing all this, this anger around it. and by the way, as to your questions about republicans, democrats were ready to burn down the capitol when tom delay had a foundation and his political donors were giving to that to get access -- >> the housing development down in texas. >> for foster kids or adopted kids as well. >> yeah. >> michael, your shot. do you see corruption here or what do you see, smoke and fire or just smoke? >> i see smoke. we want to try to find the fire. >> okay, what's wrong in what you see? >> i think the fact is, is part -- it's burning up the narrative now that there's this concern about whether or not we can trust her, whether or not she's going to be honest. you know, from my perspective, i'm looking at this, now i know what -- >> what do you know -- you've got to nail this down, michael. what is it that she did that caused you to question her honesty? what she did, not bill clinton. he grabbed the speaking -- >> it's the idea -- a couple of things. one, the idea that you put yourself in a position where i can question your -- >> how'd she do that? >> by being in office and having this relationship with these governors -- these governments through the foundations and organizations that either she has an affiliation to or her husband has an affiliation to as the former president of the united states. >> go back, stephanie, first of all, i think anybody who has anything to do with the clinton global initiative believes it's good work. is there something we ought to be watching in terms of the speaking fees? i don't understand -- you said access. that covers such a multitude of -- some people like social aspect. they just like to hang around with the clintons, because they like their company. >> but the access gives you the uranium deal. >> go ahead, you certainly may. go ahead. >> i was just going to say that hillary clinton was spending four years as secretary of state, watching out for the security of the country over this time period. the campaign even made it clear today that she had absolutely no involvement in the state department's review over the say -- >> the uranium deal, right. >> exactly right. >> and so, she's -- she has been a very, very good secretary of state and i think this is ultimately, and we look at this, is what the voters are looking for here. this election, again, i know, we're going to step back and it's going to sound corny, but the truth is, they want to talk about what's going on in that are lives, and the republican strategy here is about making it about hillary clinton -- >> let's be honest. they want to knock her out before she even gets started. you know, stephanie, exactly, hit her now when she doesn't have a full team ready to defend. thank you so much. we'll revisit this. >> i know we will. >> last point. what's the worst thing hillary clinton has done? what's she really done wrong that you know is wrong -- >> i think all of this could have gone away if she had put that server on the street and let people what's on it -- >> oh, the server. >> i guarantee you a lot of what we're talking about right now will be found there. >> she may be beyond reproach, it may turn out that way -- >> that's an easy charge to make. the server is destroyed, you can't be disproven. >> well, you know, i'm just saying, this is something that could have been avoided. number two, "the new york times" and "washington post" are not part of a republican cabal. i appreciate stephanie trying to make that linkage. >> michael, this reminds me of that irish game, somebody dies and they say, he never liked you. there's no way we could disprove what you ever said. >> the clintons should step away from the presidency. put it in somebody else's hands for a while. >> you know how long people will be interested in that? they're not anymore. anyway, thank you, stephanie, i'm trying to be nice to you, because we've got two big guys over here and they seem to have teamed up. >> wish i could be here. >> i wish you would too. up next, the florida mailman -- this is a great guy, coming up. you can't beat this guy. here he is flying -- well, he flew that gyrocopter on to the lawn of the u.s. capitol to make his protest there about the corruption of too much money, secretive money in politics. well, jason chaffetz from utah whatnoted to shoot that guy out of the sky. as i said, blame the messenger. he's now under home detention, sort of. he can actually move around. he's here on "hardball" tonight. we'll talk to him. i want this guy to address a joint meeting of congress. that's what i want him to do. this is "hardball," the place for politics.ously turns romantic why pause to take a pill? and why stop what you're doing to find a bathroom? with cialis for daily use, you don't have to plan around either. it's the only daily tablet approved to treat erectile dysfunction so you can be ready anytime the moment is right. plus cialis treats the frustrating urinary symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently, day or night. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision or any symptoms of an allergic reaction stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. why pause the moment? ask your doctor about cialis for daily use. for a free 30-tablet trial go to cialis.com he is lucky to be alive, because he should have been blown out of the air and very well could have been. he wasn't. >> you should he should have been blown out of the air? >> i -- i -- i -- i -- i think if you're going to do that and come down -- if it was up to me, i would have taken care of the problem. >> "if it was up to me, i would have taken care of the problem." wow, jason chaffetz a tough customer. that was house oversight customer, jason chaffetz, and the problem he wanted to shut down was florida mailman, doug hughes. hughes piloted his homemade gyrocopter on to the lawn of u.s. capitol. he said he's fed up with fat cats pouring billions of dollars into american politics with no traceability. the 61-year-old flew literally under the radar with letters to every member of congress who said this, secretary of state john kerry saying, then ending chase for money threatens to steal our democracy itself. joining me right now from his home in ruskin, florida, where he's currently there is doug hughes. first of all, mr. hughes, congratulations for your message. without getting into big trouble, i completely support your message. let me ask you, what's the condition right now of your detention? are you allowed to walk around, go to the store, go to starbucks, whatever? can you do that? >> no, no, i'm under house arrest. i can't leave the inside of my home. >> the inside of your home. show me your ankle, the bracelet. the country wants to see that. can we look at it now? >> okay. it's just a gps. >> let me look at it. i have to charge it every day. >> you have to charge it? >> it's -- it's not removable, but it can get wet, i can shower with it, but i'm not supposed to -- >> what is your feeling when you first wake up in the morning and you feel that on your leg? what do you feel about personal responsibility, the goal that you set when you set about this mission to fly the gyrocopter to the capitol building, how does it all settle when you first wake up in the morning? you said, dammit, i did the right thing, i'm a hero at least to myself? what do you say? >> that's the whole thing, chris, it is personal responsibility. if you read about civil disobedience, you have to be willing to accept the consequences for what you do if you believe in them. and i believe that. >> what percentage of the media coverage has focused on your message and what percentage, do you think, is focused on your means? >> chris, i've watched remarkably little media. everybody knows better than me how much the media has -- how they've covered it. i do think the people who don't want to talk about the corruption in washington do want to talk about hoards of muslim terrorists coming in on hoards of gyrocopters and jumping out and charging the capitol with swords in hand. that's the vision that they want to talk about. >> that's not my cartoon. anyway, you did get a lot of attention on this. look at this, syndicated columnist kathleen parker wrote, it takes courage to stand where you put your money or deliver your letters to the u.s. congress in person. see, mr. hughes, your stunt worked. let me ask you about the corruption, you call it. describe an example of what you think a case where big money, any money, changes how a congressman or a senator votes, or a president? where do you see it happening? >> where i see it happening bothers me the most is that almost 50% of our congress that's retired, whether they lost the election or they retired, has gone to work for k-street, or as lobbyists, off k-street, earning 14 times what they made in the congress. and that's not a fixed amount. but on average, 14 times what they made in the congress. and i don't think any of these people are worth $1.5 million or $2 million a year as consultants. i think they're getting paid for voting the way the lobbyist firm they associated with told them they had to vote. >> so you think it's a post-payment. you think it's a delayed payment for services rendered in office? >> obviously. and i think the american public will see it the same way. and it's totally legal. what i did was illegal. and i may go to jail for it. they do it every day and none of them will ever see jail time for it. >> how many years would it be after serving in congress would you say, no more, no lobbying? >> right now, in a lot of professions, you sign a non-compete clause. and turned non-compete clause, you can't go to work for another company that does the kind of business that you were working for. now, stay with me. >> i'm with you. >> the non-compete claus is in effect after you've left the employ of that other company. >> right. >> and they can tell you what you can and can't do. we can do the same thing with congress. we can say, there's a non-compete claus, as far as who you can go to work for or whether or not who you're going to work for, whether or not the amount of money looks suspicious, whether it looks like you're accepting payoffs. and it could be for ten years. >> let's see how you make that a law and whether that's constitutional or not, but i like the way you think. thank you, mr. hughes, i think a lot of people now sympathize with your cause and know it's hard to come up with a solution as well. thank you, we know your cause. coming up next, president obama made headlines when he said elizabeth warren was wrong about that big trade deal he won. when we come back, elizabeth warren's response. and 7 to 5, the democrats in that committee voted for fastrack. this isn't one sided, but it is a hot debate. you're a watching "hardball," the place for politics. 0 we're allies on a whole host of issues. but she's wrong on this. and when you hear folks make olt of suggestions about how bad this trade deal is, when you dig into the facts, they are wrong. >> welcome back to "hardball." that was from my interview with president obama on tuesday, where he made his case for the possibly historic trans-pacific trade deal. massachusetts senator elizabeth warren is the most celebrated critic in the deal, and last night on msnbc's rachel maddow, warren responded to that charge. >> now, it's the case that the president says that he wants the american people to judge this deal based on the facts, but, to do that, he's got to make the deal public. if it's a great deal for families, like the president says, or a great deal for workers, then put it out there and let them see it before we have to grease the skids to get the deal done. they're asking us to vote now on greasing the skids, so that we give up now any chance to be able to amend it, any chance to be able to block it. any chance to be able to slow it down. and my view is, when the process is rigged, then the outcome is likely to be rigged. >> for more on the debate on the -- it's in the democratic party, over the trade showdown, let's bring in our roundtable, jonathan capehart with "the washington post", an opinion writer, msnbc political analyst as well. nejdra pickler is a white house reporter for the associated press. and john fieri is a republican strategist. nejdra, it seems to me there's a lot of peripheral argument here. first of all, every senator at stanford could go in and look at this report as it's being developed. she can do it anytime she wants. there's going to be a 60-day review period publicly where everyone in the world will see it. it's going to take 180 days to get this thing approved. the idea this is getting done in secret arrangement isn't quite accurate, except the early parts,. >> they're playing with the words a little bit. it is not accurate to say this is a secret deal, which is the language they keep using. it is accurate that they are right now negotiating it privately, but eventually, as you said, all of this language is going to be available for public view. >> and there's never been a trade deal that's ever been approved, except by fastrack. i worked in that for years. i knew you had to do it one way, because otherwise you can't get the other 12, in this case, the other 11 countries to agree to something you then bring up to a vote. there's no body to the argument. >> elizabeth warren seizes on this because she's great at getting the press and great at rolling out the left. >> why doesn't she just say, i don't believe in free trade, i'm a protectionist. >> because she's somewhat delusional and she's a conspiracy theorist and it works with -- >> i disagree -- she says this kind of stuff all the time. everything is rigged. you know, the facts are the facts and this trade deal will help america get jobs. >> here's the thing about what senator warren said yesterday that stuck with me. and that was, she admitted to rachel that she had seen the deal. she has read the deal. but she's not allowed to talk about it. now -- and she wants the american people to see it. what i didn't hear in that interview is, well, if you've read -- if you've read the trade agreement, or at least as much as it that there is, what about it does not comport to what the president has said? and isn't that why the american people send people to washington, to read these bills and tell them what's going on? >> john, i was impressed by this notion that all progressives, all democrats are against this deal. and i see a vote in the senate finance committee. okay, it's the finance committee, may be a little pushed towards wealth. 7-5, the democrats voted towards fastrack. let's take a look at a video that house speaker john boehner put out today, john, today, celebrating his first 100 days in congress. >> all right. let's do this quick. well, we were able to pass a bill here in the house that did, in fact, expand access to these college savings accounts. and the president was trying to tax these plans. that's our budget -- >> and look at that book. look at that book on his desk there. >> oh,. >> john? >> that's a good book. i read it. i think everyone should buy it. you know -- >> that's product placement. >> that's product placement. well done, chris. >> thank you. we'll be right back with the roundtable. coming up next, surprise. house republicans are planning to release their benghazi report, that one that's all about hillary, of course, in the middle of the presidential campaign come 2016. what are they waiting for? you know, excitement. this is "hardball," the place for politics. instantly quenches skin to keep it supple and hydrated day after day. formulated with hydrating hyaluronic acid which retains up to 1000 times its weight in water. this refreshing water gel plumps skin cells with intense hydration and locks it in. for supple, hydrated skin that bounces back. new hydro boost. from neutrogena. we've got new polling on the 26th race for president. a new republican has raced to the poll. according to a new quinnipiac poll, marco rubio is the new republican front-runner, nationwide. rubio is pulling in 15%, just ahead of fellow floridian, jeb bush, who's at 13. scott walker is next at 11. ted cruz is in fourth with 9, 9%. we'll be right back. let me finish tonight with legal battle. republicans aren't fighting a legal battle. had a foundation and his that to get access -- just because i'm away from my desk doesn't mean i'm not working. comcast business understands that. their wifi isn't just fast near the router. it's fast in the break room. fast in the conference room. fast in tom's office. fast in other tom's office. fast in the foyer [pronounced foy-yer] or is it foyer [pronounced foy-yay]? fast in the hallway. i feel like i've been here before. switch now and get the fastest wifi everywhere. comcast business. built for business. let me finish tonight with this news that a majority of senators voted to put this bill on fast track. this is not the way this story has been running the last several days in the paper. of since the trade bill grabbed the front page, the only voices heard have been those from senator elizabeth warren that have opposed the issues. and this has become a hot debate here. the country's labor unions have been opposing. hillary clinton has yet to take sides, except it fair to say she backed the pacific rim trade deal while serving as the secretary of state calling it the gold standard of trade deals. as i've made it clear, if you want to follow this debate, watch "hardball." it's going to be hot in here. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. tonight on "all in." >> as president and as commander in chief, i take full responsibility for all our counter terrorism operations. >> the president makes a stunning announcement. >> we believe that a u.s. counter terrorism operation targeting an al qaeda compound in the afghanistan-pakistan border region accidentally killed warren and giovanni this past january. >> tonight, what we know about the drone program that accidentally killed two hostages including an american. then, the clinton campaign under siege from multiple clinton cash stories is responding for the first time. two new reports proving ted cruz and marco rubio have one message for voters and an entirely different message for their billionaire donors. "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. an unprecedented moment in american history this morning. president obama appeared on camera in a surprise address to announce the stunning news that two al qaeda hostages, warren weinstein, an american, and giovanni lo porto, an italian, were accidentally killed in a u.s. drone strike.