suddenly making outbursts, i think you then do raise above that level of suspicion. over the weekend, the susp t suspect s uncle told nbc he saw his older nephew grow more radicalized. let s watch. i was shocked when i heard his words, his phrases. when he start talking, oh, i mean, every other word he starts sticking in words of god. it wasn t devotion. it was something, as it s called, being radicalized. not understanding even what he s talking. you know, it fascinates me, i know you re good on this, david, is what putin is thinking now. does this help him make his case that he s been right against chechnya? and that we were wrong not or naive not to understand the threat from there? does he now use this, help us with our intel, help play the case? what is putin going to do with this?
six months. it s where his parents live. it s a hub of jihadist recruitment generally. the new york times wrote yesterday. back home in the u.s., tsarnaev became more radicalized. the boston globe reports he disrupted conversations at his local cambridge mosque with outbursts of radical theology and created a youtube page. how did this lead up to the boston marathon a week ago? richard engel is nbc news chief foreign correspondent. david is editor of the new yorker magazine. i want to start with richard, then to david. richard, why did the russians let him in if he was a problem for them a year earlier? it s common where you have governments watching people to give them some slack, to let them travel, to let them come into your country. it actually can be helpful sometimes if you re watching someone to see who they re talking to. we see that time and time again
south asia. that s where you re going to see the argument. i think it would be a terrible result to let what happened in boston derail what most people in the country think is a good project, with i is immigration reform. as joy said, this part of the world when dagestan and chechnya, it s time to do something about that and i think most people in the republican party and democratic party agree on that. yeah. i m just saying in terms of general attitudes towards immigrants, one thing can get con flated with and that s the danger here. let me play devil s advocate here. we just had david on who knows russia. just because someone has radical views, jihadist jus and doesn t do anything, there s nothing wrong with that. no. fair enough. but do you let them in the
but to be fair politicians make a lot of promises to get your vote that they don t keep. maybe they intend to keep some of them. maybe they don t. politifact.com tracked more than 500 promises that president obama made during his campaign in 2008 when he was candidate obama. he s kept 37% of those promises. he s working on 23% of them. he s broken 16% outright and compromised on 14% to get the job done. the rest, some of you like to tweet me a lot and point out the many promises that he hasn t kept. some of those broken promises can be blamed on congress. they are stalled because your lawmakers won t do a thing about them. i have spent the last few months blaming congress for things, but it s not congress who is going to stand in the way of romney s ridiculous promise. it s the state of the u.s. economy. 12 million jobs over four years, that s what romney is promising. that s 3 million jobs a year or an average of 250,000 jobs per month every month for an entire presidency. i
considered campaign contributions or not because of the vagueness of the definitions in the law, it s hard to say somebody knowingly violate the law. i think secondly david s point is exactly right, what they are really going at is the what we call the 1,001 misrepresent taeurbgs the lies to the federal investigators as the vicious was being done. my response to david on that is if should not have been dealt with in a criminal context to begin with. yes you can make the case on the false statements to federal investigators that is an actionable offense criminally but this should not be in the criminal realm to deal with. we ve had dozens and dozens of cases where campaign contributions may have been use us e may have knowingly been misused. this should not be in a criminal court to begin with. megyn: final question to you. is this about a man, a politician who allegedly broke the law or is this about a husband to cheated on his wife and lied about it, and used money to cover it up? i