dream act is stalled. romney bashed the president's end run around congress. even though he was asked repeatedly, he refused to say if he would repeal the order if he's elected in november. >> would you repeal this order if you became president? >> well, let's step back and look at the issue. >> what would you do about it? >> as you know, he was president for the last three and a half years, did nothing on immigration. >> but would you repeal this? >> well, it would be overtaken by events by virtue of my putting in place a long-term solution with legislation which creates law that relates to individuals such as they know their setting is going to be. for the term of a president but on a permanent basis. >> would you leave this in place while you worked out a long-term solution or would you just repeal it? >> we'll look at that setting as we reach that. but my anticipation is i'd come into office and say we need to get this done on a long-term basis. not this kind of stop-gap measure. >> during the rest of the interview, romney didn't really offer any specifics on what kind of long-term solution he has in mind. that's a far cry from the primary season where romney wasn't hedging on specifics and repeat lid took a hard line on immigration issues. watch. >> the question is, if i were elected and congress were to pass the dream act, would i veto it, and the answer is yes. i think we have to follow the law and insist that those that have come here illegally ultimately return home, apply, get in line with everyone else. return home and get in line, at the back of the line, with everybody else that wants to come here. get in the same line, at the back of the line. i want people to get in line legally. >> immigration obviously can be a big issue in the november elections. in a recent poll, president obama had a 34 point lead among latino voters. 61% to romney's 21%. some of romney's key surrogates believe he'll need around 40% of the latino vote to have a shot at winning. now, both candidates are scheduled to speak this week. at the annual meeting of latino elected and appointed officials. as we said, romney's accusing president obama of playing politics and says the timing of his new immigration policy speaks for itself. we'll let you decide for yourself. keeping them honest. romney's refusal to say if he'll overturn the new policy is also raising some eyebrows for the very same reason. the timing. we asked the campaign to discuss it. they declined. joining me now, political contributor and former white house press secretary for george w. bush, ari fleischer. also maria cardona. so, ari, i certainly understand the criticism from romney. what president obama did is about politics. can you make the same argument? isn't that about politics? >> yes. both positions have a lot of politics in them. i think they both have a good dose of substance in them too. as anybody's followed the immigration debate going back to the years of ronald reagan knows, this issue is full of both extraordinarily complicated substance and politics. it's also full of deep-seated emotion on both sides. i come at it from a point of view of a bush republican who actually tried to do something in a comprehensive way in congress when president obama tried to get immigration reform enacted. a lot of well meaning people love this country and want to come to this country. i'm the son of an immigrant. by the same token, we're a nation that pays a lot of homage to the rule of law. that's why this is such a complicated issue. >> maria, most republicans, including mitt romney, have reacted and are still reacting very carefully to the president's announcement. romney just said he disagrees with the president's methods. is there a chance the president won't be able to draw the contrast he might have been hoping to? >> oh, no, there's no chance of that. he's already drawn the contrast which is why you see the majority of latino voters even before this announcement are supporting president obama on this. and, look, this is the problem with mitt romney. this is the box he has painted himself into because of what you just ran. what he has said during the primaries in order to shore up his conservative base that he would veto the dream act. his long-term sole lushgs if his long term solution if we're to listen to his words during the primary, would be for all undocumented immigrants to self-deport. those are his words. he said the draconian arizona law should be a model for the nation. but he also understands, and you mentioned this as well, but he can't get to the white house without at least 40% of the hispanic vote. there's no chance he's going to get anywhere near that if he doesn't soften his stance on immigration. that's going to be difficult for him because then his conservative base will be up in arms. >> ari, latino voters vote on more than just immigration issues, but do you see a problem with romney's outreach to latino voters? >> i think republicans have a problem with hispanic voters. if there were no gaps in politics, either race would end up tied. both parties have these issues with different constituencies. you can make the case president obama doesn't get more than 60% of the hispanic vote he can't win, therefore he's doing everything he can to appeal, to try to rev up his numbers on a very political basis. and, of course, what the president did is very thin. it's not the dream act. if the dream act is a full act, this is just a nap. this barely touches all the broad measures that the dream act gets into. that's all he really is doing in this change that he's making. there's also a lot of basis for whether or not the administration has a legality to be able to do this. the bush administration looked into doing it. we concluded we did not have authority. >> gloria borger is joining us. with this breaking news on marco rubio. what do you make of this? we have been told for a long time rubio was working on an alternative to the dream act that would be appealing to republicans. we're now hearing he's backed away from that. >> right, look, i think one of the reasons that the white house and the administration did what it did is because marco rubio had not proposed a piece of legislation that everyone kind of thought was forthcoming. and the fact that he hadn't proposed it, allowed the white house -- who was just being hold there, allowed the white house to drive a mack truck through it. i think what rubio proposed would have become a real litmus test within the republican party. if he doesn't propose anything, it allows them to say, you know what, the president is wrong on the process. what he's doing may well be overstepping his constitutional bounds, and allows them to remain vague on the substance of what the president has proposed until after the election. if rubio were to propose a specific piece of legislation, you would be dividing conservatives in the republican party on one side, and people like marco rubio who were a little bit more liberal on immigration issues on the other side. so i think they decided to take a pass. >> ari, how do you read this? >> i spent a lot the day talking to his staff. their view is what the president did blew up any chance of getting any type of bipartisan action together on capitol hill. that the president in taking executive action and doing such a narrow slice of it has poisoned the well. senator rubio i think himself used those exact words. but he's been upfront about it today saying that this damaged the chances of congress getting anything done. i think that's arguable. the administration has its point of view. i still think they have a legal constitutional problem. that's a separate issue. i think there's more to it than what gloria indicated. >> maria? >> i actually think marco rubio realized he doesn't have the support he needed. within his own republican party. let's remember speaker boehner when he first heard about mar rubio's idea, he said it would be very difficult to get anything like that, like that proposal through congress right now. i also want to say republicans will also criticize the president. to say, this is strictly political. why didn't he do anything before now? the fact is, he has tried to do something before now. let's remember that in 2010 he pushed very hard to try to pass the dream act. the majority of democrats supported him and voted for it. he was only able to get three republicans to vote for it. right now, there are 11 republican senators in congress who just a few short years ago supported comprehensive immigration reform. not one has been able to step forward and say i support it now. so that's the reality of it -- and that's why they're in trouble. >> we're also joined by jessica yellin. you just got off the phone with a rubio aide, is that correct? >> i have. the office says the reason the senator has -- pulled the legislation because he never really introduced it, but they've been working behind the scenes. they say it's not going to happen now at this time. they thought there was momentum to consider their approach ahead of summer vacation when there were kids who were going to go back to school in the fall and they were facing deportation before school this fall and they thought there was a sense of urgency to pass it before school began. and they -- this is from rubio's perspective, now that the president has introduced this new executive move, that there's no longer that sense of urgency, and that means they're not going to reach consensus on anything. there's a hardening of positions. and nothing on this will be passed before the election. that's the rubio position. i can tell you, covering the white house, they would have a very different perspective on this and they would likely say there is not likely to be a consensus on this measure anyway. that's the latest update from rubio land. >> i know you wanted to say something. >> the point i was going to make, anderson, this underscores how deep an issue this is. he essentially tried to build a center. the center couldn't hold. it couldn't hold because of opposition from conservative republicans. also from a lot of the afl-cio democrats who don't want an injection of labor come into this country. they view that as competition to keep wages down. there really is -- this is one of the most complicated issues in government. president obama did run on a promise that in his first year he would introduce a comprehensive fundamental to deal with immigration reform. he never followed up on it. what we're dealing with now is a very narrow slice. >> let's remember that when he came into office, he had to deal with, frankly, trying to rescue this economy from the second great depression. by the way, there was already legislation called the mccain kennedy bill that this president was trying to push. again, i go back to 11 senators who supported that. absolutely. one of the best things that he ever did. the things i agreed with him on. no other republicans because president obama was president and their focus was to make sure he was a one-term president not to solve our great problems like immigration, they turned their back on the american people. >> it's both sides. >> and on the president. >> it's both sides. you can't blame one party. >> the afl-cio came around. they were part of the big coalition that supported comprehensive immigration reform. they came around. conservative republicans have never come around on this. >> only with all the exemption built in -- >> but they came around. the conservative republicans have never come around on this and they will never support comprehensive immigration reform. that's why republicans have a problem with latino voters. >> we're going to leave it there. maria cordona, appreciate it. appreciate all of you calling in on the breaking news. let us know what you think. let's tweet about this right now. a new chapter in the child sex abuse trial of jerry sandusky. the prosecution arested their case today. as defense attorneys called their first witnesses, could be sandusky's own words making their job a lot more difficult. the surprising pretty shock video next on "360." [ kate ] most women may not be properly absorbing the calcium they take because they don't take it with food. switch to citracal maximum plus d. it's the only calcium supplement that can be taken with or without food. that's why my doctor recommends citracal maximum. it's all about absorption. >> announcer: this is the day. the day that we say to the world of identity thieves "enough." we're lifelock, and we believe you have the right to live free from the fear of identity theft. our pledge to you? as long as there are identity thieves, we'll be there. we're lifelock. and we offer the most comprehensive identity theft protection ever created. lifelock: relentlessly protecting your identity. call 1-800-lifelock or go to lifelock.com today. ♪... ♪... ♪... choose the perfect hotel i think we should see other people. in fact, i'm already seeing your best friend, justin. ♪ i would've appreciated a proactive update on the status of our relationship. who do you think i am, tim? quicken loans? at quicken loans, we provide you with proactive updates on the status of your home loan. and our innovative online tools ensure that you're always in the loop. one more way quicken loans is engineered to amaze. crime and punishment tonight. prosecutors in the jerry sandusky trial rested their case today. nbc revealing today a member of the prosecution team recently reached out to the network asking its lawyers to reair a full unedited transcript. that interview includes potentially damaging clips like this one that never made it to air. >> it's entirely possible you could have helped young boy a in some way that was not objectionable while horribly taking advantage of young boy b, c, d and e, isn't that possible? >> well, you might think that, i don't know. and in terms of my relationship with so many, many young people, um, i would, i would guess that there are many young people who would come forward, many more young people, who would come forward and say that my methods and what i had done for them made a very positive impact on their life. i didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that i've helped. there are many that i didn't have -- i hardly had any contact with, whom i have helped in many, many ways. >> this could complicate the job for his attorneys who called their first witness today. the judge telling jurors he expects the defense to finish presenting their case on wednesday. jason carroll was in court today. i spoke to him about today's testimony. jason, this is the first time we've heard from one the accuser's moms in court. she said her son never spoke to her of the alleged abuse. if that's true, it falls in step with what the other accusers have testified, right? >> it certainly does. what we've seen throughout this trial so far is this pattern of accusers saying they did not want to talk about these allegations, not to their friends, not to their family. the mother of accuser number nine, when she took the stand, you got the sense of the guilt she felt over what allegedly happened with her son. she talked about how her son repeatedly said he did not want to go over jerry sandusky's house. she basically forced him to go over there because of jerry sandusky's upstanding reputation in the community. she even said to this day, she still has not spoken to her son about the allegations. she talked about them on the stand. saying, quote, i just didn't really want to hear. i just knew it would be tough for him to tell me. she was in tears when she described this. and it was definitely one of the most emotional parts of the testimony today. >> the defense began presenting their case. they put a couple character witnesses on the stand. were they able to call into question any of the allegations of abuse? >> not today. perhaps we'll see some of that tomorrow. basically, there was several character witnesses who were called. one is a former second mile participant. second mile, of course, is the organization that jerry sang dusky founded to help young boys. also, two former penn state football coaches who talked very much about this culture of showering with boys. as you know, jerry sandusky has admitted to showering with young boys on several occasions. two of these former coaches talked about this idea of coaches showering in locker rooms. they said sometimes when they were there, young boys were there, they did not think it was anything out of the normal. one of the former coaches when asked about jerry sandusky's character said, quote, i'll wait for full story. i think he's a great guy. this, coming from booker brooks. again, a former assistant coach at penn state. just a final note about him, we we were told by mr. brooks -- he told cnn after testifying he was just chosen to testify in jerry's defense just this past money. that gives you a sense of how quickly the defense is still putting together its case. >> interesting. jason, appreciate it. so what can we expect once the defense team lays out their case? let's bring in former l.a. deputy district attorney marcia clark. she's the author of the book "guilt by degrees." also with us, criminal dense attorney mark geragos. and also, our guest, a delegate for the american association. mark, so these two former penn state coaches say it wasn't at all uncommon to see a coach showering with young boys. that many of the coaches did that, adult males did the same thing. this isn't a legal question, i've been on teams in college. i never heard anyone on the planet do that before. does that reilly sound like a good defense to you? >> well, actually, i can make some jokes, but i won't. the thing that i like about it, remember who they're speaking to. the audience is not me in los angeles or you in new york. the audience is 12 jurors, 6 or 7 of which had penn state connections. strong penn state connections. they start parading witnesses, especially character witnesses who have a penn state connection to say, this is what goes on. it's not something out of the ordinary. and i'm going to tell you something, before people say this is a complete slam dunk for the prosecution, understand from the defense standpoint all they're looking for is one or two jurors who have a reasonable doubt. you start to get character witnesses on there, and frankly, contrary to what the report was, character evidence can be very persuasive, you get a jury instruction that says the character evidence alone can provide reasonable doubt. you start to get people who are part of the penn state community. the jurors are part of that penn state community. you may start to see the building blocks to a reasonable doubt. >> that's why we have a defense attorney on the panel. marcia, do you agree with that? >> of course not. i've heard other people say they were criticizing the prosecution for leaving these witnesses on. the witnesses who are associated with penn state. they feel they'll be sympathetic to sandusky. they'll actually want to cover their own communal behinds by acquitting him. i don't think that's the case. i think they're going to show we take care of our own business here. we're not going to be swayed by this. we are not impressed with this defense, and we're not going to be -- you cannot lean on our loyalty to penn state. i think that if this is true that coaches at penn state routinely shower with young boy, penn state is about to see a huge drop in enrollment. be that as it may, i don't think these jurors are going to be impressed by this defense. >> marcia, marcia, you know, one of the things that i think, there is this residual feeling at least i get from my 30,000 foot view, that there's a lot of people in that penn state community who feel a lot of resentment abo