good morning and welcome to "this week." breaking overnight with the verdict is in. >> we, the jury, find george zimmerman not guilty. >> protests break out after the high stakes trial that gripped the country, as america faces big questions now about race, justice, and gun control. then new low? the gridlock, the squabbles. >> these are dark days in the history of the senate. >> was it washington's worst week left? to the center of the fight and the closed door meetings. plus the roundtable on sphi second chance. and the tell all book that has washington talking. right here on this sunday

morning. and we begin with the breaking news overnight. after more than 16 hours of deliberations, a jury of six women delivered the decision, not guilty of murder or manslaughter, zimmerman is a free man. it captivate the nation, and there were protests overnight, but from washington, a muted reaction. trayvon's mom tweeted this was her darkest hour, and his father, even though i'm brokenhearted, my faith is unshattered. i will love my baby tray. the senate judiciary committee and the congressional black caucus. matt gutman has covered this all the way. good morning, take us inside that courtroom last night. >> reporter: good morning,

george. that courtroom was intense. so many eyeballs on it. but it wasn't always this way. it wasn't always headline news. it began as a routine homicide that ignited the national debate about race. the six female jurors filed in, you could see the tension on the prosecutor's face with the defenses face, everybody looked tired. they made a decision not based on race, but about the law. they decided the state didn't have enough evidence to convict them he should be convicted on second degree murder other manslaughter. and just after that, you saw george zimmerman with a muted response. once he started hugging his family and attorneys, you saw him break a smile there. now noticeably absent from the courtroom, trayvon martin's parents, george. >> and the security situation has been so tight, everyone still on high alert? >> reporter: very much so. especially the family of trayvon martin. there was a reason they weren't in the courtroom.

we were told from the sheriff's office that the tenor and the severity of the death threats have increased, and they felt it was safer to keep them away from the courthouse and to bolster their security, not just them, zimmerman and his family also the target of death threats. his attorney said he may be a free man, may have had at ankle bracelet taken off, but he's walking around with a bullet proof vest, and he may have to live in hiding. george. >> all right, more reaction now from benjamin crump, the attorney for trayvon martin's family. thank you for joining us this morning. we know the family is heartbroken. they are under heavy security. do they accept the verdict and what do you want people to know this morning? >> well, they are trying make sense of it all, george. they want people to know they're going to continue to fight for the legacy of their son. that he had every right to walk

home from the 7-eleven and not expect to be profiled and followed by a strange man. they're trying to like many parents, explain to the young people in their family what just happened. what is this about that a child can't have skittles and a can of ice tea and walk home and not have a bullet lodged in his heart and his killer not be held accountable for profiling and following him. that's what they're dealing, and what most parents in america are dealing with. >> they're still grieving right now. when you say they're going to fight for at legacy, will you be filing a civil lawsuit, and do you want the justice department to have an investigation? >> right now they're concentrating on getting through this trying time, george.

they have a trayvon martin foundation that they have been working tirelessly on because they know they had no power in the court system. they had to depend completely on the justice system and pray that it would work for them as it worked for everybody else. and so the one thing they can control is this foundation. tracy and sabrina have been trying to do that work so they can make sure there are no other children who get killed as a result of senseless violence. >> will they file a lawsuit? >> they are going to certainly look at that as an option. they deeply want a sense of justice. they deeply don't want their son's death to be in vain. i mean, they are still in disbelief about his death, and now they're in disbelief about this verdict. it's just one of the things they have to deal with. they're in church this morning, praying and trying to turn to

god, a higher authority, to make sense of it all. >> are you satisfied with how the prosecutors handled the case? any concern they should have pursued lesser charges as well? >> well, george, i think that the prosecutors are very seasoned prosecutors, and they in their summations cut right to the heart of the matter what this case was really about. when prosecutor john said if the roles were reversed, and trayvon martin would have followed and profiled and shot george zimmerman in the heart, what would the verdict have been? and that's the question that everybody's asked, and that's why the whole world was watching this case to see if everybody can get equal justice, not just certainly people. and so that's troubling, george. >> it's interesting you bring that up mark o' mara spoke out on precisely that question.

>> i think that things would have been different if george zimmerman were black for this reason. he never would have been charged with a crime. >> what is your reaction to that? >> george, if you go to any courtroom in america on any given day, you will see the number of african-american males being convicted on not much evidence at all. not that it's right, but you will see that nobody in america worries that black men won't be convicted in court. that is not a big issue. now, black victims worry about if they are victims to others outside of their community, whether they will be convicted. but i challenge anybody to go to courts all over america, sit in the back and watch how the justice system place out when it comes to black males. >> no doubt in your mind race was at the center of this trial? >> well, i think we would be

intellectually dishonest if we don't acknowledge the racial undertones in this case. there was a reason why everybody was watching this case. and they wanted to see if everybody got equal justice. now, you know, we have to accept the rule of law. there is no guarantee of justice. i told trayvon's parents that from the beginning, we have a chance at justice. but we do want people to know that children should be able to live on this earth, walk on this earth, and not feel that they're going to be profiled by what they were or what ethnicity they belong to. and that has to be something we have to progress from. where do we go from here? take steps forward to make sure this never happens again, or regress and say the precedent is set where you can shoot little minority boys and nobody be held accountable?

>> mr. crump, thank you very much for your time this morning. >> thank you. and here now for more on the verdict is dan abrams, pierre thomas, the editorial page editor, paul, and tavis smiley of pbs. no surprise to you, you said this all the way, the prosecution didn't make the case. >> that's right. you look at the legal question, the question was, was there reasonable doubt about the moment that george zimmerman shot trayvon martin? and the question was, did george zimmerman reasonably believe that great bodily injury was going to be inflicted? there was a lot of evidence that trayvon martin had beaten george zimmerman. what led up to that is a separate question. but the legal question was only what was going on in george zimmerman's mind at the moment he did that. and was there reasonable doubt as to what he believed. when you picture it that way,

and talking about just that moment he shoots, and the amount of evidence there was that george zimmerman had been beaten by trayvon martin, it was difficult to see how the prosecution was going to win this case. >> so that gets to the question of did they overreach? >> well, the justice department is looking at that very issue in terms of whether a civil rights case can be brought. in terms of the prosecutors, a lot of legal scholars are going to look at the case and say they should have gone for a lesser charge. but as you look at the case, you have what took place in the court which had to deal with the law, but the court of public opinion is where this thing is exploding. many in fact african-american community wondering about one single issue, which was trayvon martin singled out, when at the time of day, between 7:00 and 8:00 at night, not midnight, not 2:00 a.m. in the morning, a reasonable period to be walking down the street. no report of a crime. that is the issue that many african-americans --

>> and that's the broad question, but given the prospect of a justice department investigation, clearly it's open right now, but the bar is very high, they're going to have to show that the violence was motivated by racial prejudice, not an accident, not negligence, not self-defense. >> the bar is extremely high, but the justice department will be under intense pressure to do something. >> can they resist it? >> i would hope they will. i think it would be seen by a lot of the country as a case of double jeopardy. this is not -- it's not as if this didn't get an extensive trial. the state threw everything they had at him for a year and a half. the judge in many of the rulings tended to be sympathetic. they gave the option of manslaughter, and couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. i think you cannot say that tray von martin didn't have representation in this case. >> do you agree? >> i disagree. i think this is for many americans just another piece of

evidence of the contempt that this nation often shows and displays for black men. in just a matter of weeks, we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the march on washington, and the wonderful i have a dream speech. in that speech, the one line, not much else, but that line, i want my children to one day live in a nation where they will not be junked by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. george zimmerman knew nothing of his character, only his color. something is wrong, 50 years after the march on washington, while the voting rights act is being gutted, speaking of the justice department, what they'll do about that. something is wrong when he was racially profiled -- >> that is a big debate to have. but that wasn't the question in the courtroom, was it? >> i think what happens is, if you go to a barer shop or beauty

salon, prior to the trial, i don't have the scientific data, but i live and work in a black community, but you couldn't find a majority of african-americans who believed it was going to end differently. they were hoping for something difference. >> could it have ended differently? >> are there mistakes, yeah. should they have shown minor inconsistencies as opposed to effectively forcing him to testify? yeah, there was a mistake. maybe they overcharged here, they probably did. would it have made a difference? no. with regard to the federal investigation. yes, there will be a federal investigation. they will publicly discuss it, and there will not be charges filed. the civil rights decision will not file. >> because they can't win?

>> they won't win, and they know that. now there are two separate questions, and it's important to distinguish them. one is a broad societal right and wrong, and what is wrong with our society. and that is a fair question to ask. but that different question than talking about what happened in that courtroom. because if you watch the trial every day the way that i did, you lose the sort of big picture and get very focused on the little picture. >> but respectfully, the problem is every time we get to the nexus, and i agree there are two separate issues, but every time we get there, we never accept that race is real, color will get you killed. and every time we have these cases, and it's a case by case situation, but somebody can explain why this person got off, was not found guilty, and we have dead black men.

>> what do they do beyond the justice department investigation? we saw the president step in at the beginning of the case. what now? >> we will have to have a broader conversation about race. it's often discussed, but never fully put on the table. even though you have an african-american president, and an attorney general who said in an interview he had been profiled himself which is going to have to deal with the issue, this problem of how black men are viewed. conversations we had interviewing educated black females, two-parent households who teach their children, young black males, when you go into a convenience store, do not put your hands in your pockets, never wear a hoodie. be careful what you say and how you say it. it's 2013, it's fascinating we're having that conversation. >> and if george zimmerman hadn't gotten out of that car at

night. >> true. but you can't try social policy in an image case. it's difficult to do that, and it causes injustice to the individuals in the courtroom. i think we have the debate, we're having a huge debate in new york city about stop and frisk. the policy of stopping people who are suspected of carrying weapons. that is going on in a court of law. there's a case against it. and it's going on in the larger debate. >> but when our children are forced to surrender their life choices before they ever know their life chances, our democracy is threatened. >> any chance this will lead to review of stand your ground laws in the states? >> this wasn't a stand your ground case, waived that, it became a standard self-defense case. are people going to talk about it? yes. are they going to point to the case and say this is the example of stand your ground? no. >> george, one interesting point, is the system capable of

answering a question about what's in someone's mind? did the actions of zimmerman, for example, his views on race, seep into how he responded once he encountered trayvon martin? that may be the question the system couldn't address. >> i want to hear from the jurors. we don't know whether these jurors believed george zimmerman or not. >> what we do know, at least as it appears to me, you can stand your ground unless you're a black man. >> we don't know that. >> it appears to me and many other persons in the country, you can stand your ground unless you are a black man. george zimmerman was allowed to stand his ground, trayvon martin wasn't allowed to stand his ground. >> there have been a lot of cases in florida with black on black crime where similar charges were filed. i want to focus on this case, and we need to have the discussion. but i don't know that when you

connect the two, that it's necessarily fair in connection with this case. but i am going to be very curious to hear from the jurors say. >> thank you for that. when we come back, gridlock in the house and senate. inside one of washington's roughest weeks left. and the roundtable on the new wave of political comebacks and the book that has washington buzzing. out there owning it. the ones getting involved and staying engaged. they're not afraid to question the path they're on. because the one question they never want to ask is "how did i end up here?" i started schwab for those people. people who want to take ownership of their investments, like they do in every other aspect of their lives.

when we come back, gridlock in i want to make things more secure. [ whirring ] [ dog barks ] i want to treat more dogs. ♪ our business needs more cases. [ male announcer ] where do you want to take your business? i need help selling art. [ male announcer ] from broadband to web hosting to mobile apps, small business solutions from at&t have the security you need to get you there. call us. we can show you how at&t solutions can help you do what you do... even better. ♪

this republican congress turned advise and consent into deny and obstruct. >> these are dark days in the history of the senate. >> these procedural blockades are obvious and unprecedented. but the republican leader says there's nothing here. >> he will be remembered as the worst leader of the senate. >> they went at it this week over what's being called the nuclear option. more on that ahead. and we bring in orrin hatch, and amy klobuchar, and from the house, congresswoman karen bass, democrat, and tom cole from the gop leadership team. welcome to all of you. i want to talk about the debates in the congress, but the breaking news overnight. the not guilty verdict. karen bass, your reaction? >> it was a devastating verdict. i just am very concerned about what message this sends to the community. the fear that people must have now.

but, you know, i just think that it was very sad. >> sad, senator hatch, but was justice served? >> it looked to me like it was. if the rule is you've got to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, there were doubts. but it's a serious is set of problems that exist, and i agree with the commentators we need to look at the matters more carefully. but i think the verdict was, at least from all that i watched, it seemed to me it was an accurate verdict. >> senator, you're a former prosecutor, a member of the judiciary committee, should they bring a civil rights case? or should he pass? >> i know the investigation going on. as a former prosecutor, you have to wait to see the evidence. they'll have to make the decision. it will be tough, but going through with the investigation important. my thoughts are with the family. i've seen this before, it's hard to take. i hope they take solace in the support they have across the

country. a 16-year-old boy going out to get snacks at a convenience store shouldn't end up dead. >> and congressman, we talked about the two debates, the legal and the moral debate. how do we handle it? >> it's hard to keep them separated. this is a tragedy that should have never happened. zimmerman should never have gone in the car, had a gun, shouldn't have been out. the police advised him to stay home. but we don't know what happened in the actual encounter. that's what the jury struggled with. they were trying to determine what happened. is there a reasonable doubt here? it's a pretty high standard. we'll be talking about the case for a long time to come. they have to decide on the facts of the case, there are moral dimensions. and obviously, we have to come to grips with that. >> and that will continue. thank you for that. now to the immigration debate in the senate and the house this week. congressman cole, your leadership decided to go forward with single bills on the various

aspects of the problem, it sure seemed like, senator hatch, that the bipartisan bill you supported is dead in the house right now. any way to get it back on track? >> i don't think it's dead. i think the house members will take it as a serious challenge, and i'm counting on them. our bill isn't perfect in the senate. there are a lot of things i think need to be perfected, and the house can do a good job, and hopefully go to conference and come up with a bill that will solve the festering sore with 11 million people who don't know where to go, to do, and we don't know what to do with them. most of them are pretty good people and would like to be americans or at least have a job here. we can work this out. the senate bill goes a long way in going to do that. i want to give marco rubio credit, he had guts to do everything he did on the bill, and he was a formidable force, and the gang of eight people were very good too.

let me tell you something, i'm counting on the house to get it better. i'm counting on the house, realizing we can't just continue on with this de facto amnesty, which is what marco rubio calls it. and i think that's an accurate description. >> counting on the house. but he raised a couple of big sticking points. number one, there's not a lot of appetite in your conference to deal with the legalization of the undocumented immigrants in the country right now. also this whole idea of going to conference with the senate bill, a big comprehensive bill rather than piecemeal. could you do that? can you go to conference with the senate bill and will it include a path to legalization? >> i think you can. i'm not surprise the that the senate bill can't make it in the house. two out of three voted no. the republican house was unlikely to see that as a main vehicle. but i do think the eight senators produced a decent

product and it got better. that's why it picked up support. on our side, we have the individual approach, but there's also negotiations going on between our gang of seven for a larger, more comprehensive bill. we'll see that. >> are you open to a path to legalization? >> a lot depends on -- i am, legalization, as long as other things are done first. what you can't have is legalization on the promise of future enforcement. this was the formula in '86. that didn't work. people have little faith in the federal government. they're going to have to see other things first. >> does that work, congresswoman? or all at once? >> i think it should be comprehensive. sitting on the judiciary committee and hearing the individual bills that have been proposed, i'm very concerned. i'll give you an example. on the guest worker program, for example, the proposal said that an individual should be paid 90% of their salary, and 10% sent to their home country, and they

have to go home and pick it up. i'm very concerned. there's a part that's optimistic in the sense that we felt, different than my colleague, i know, that if he put the senate bill up, there would be enough house republicans that would vote for it if the speaker will break the rule in saying that it has to be the majority. >> that's not going to happen. >> no, it's not, and it shouldn't. and i don't think there are enough people to vote for it. we never get anything out of the senate that a majority of republicans vote for and the minority of the democrats. this idea that we're going to constantly -- we've done it three times. we have been more than fair, they have to produce a bill. >> seems like everyone is -- trying put an optimistic face on this, but take a step back and say this is getting late here in 2013. if this doesn't move quickly, it's not going to happen. >> i agree with that. that's why we put such an effort in the senate to get a strong bipartisan bill. 68 votes in the senate. if you're looking for a

conservative bill, david brooks made this argument recently, look at this bill. $197 in debt reduction in just ten years. that's something republicans should support. $700 billion in debt reduction in 20 years. the economic growth. 90 of the fortune 500 countries by immigrants, 200 by immigrants or kids of immigrants. that's why we worked together to make it easier to bring over science and engineers that are going to start companies. and the border security, the overstays on visas, that's been improved. from a conservative standpoint, you understand why karl rove and grover norquist are supporting this bill. it's time for the house republicans to look at it from the position of economic growth. >> you are working together on this. we saw senators reid and mcconnell going at it over the nuclear option. let me try to explain.

it's basically the idea that you would do away with the filibuster. senator reid is proposing to do away with it on presidential appointees on cabinet positions. senator hatch, you appear to have changed your mind on this. when the republicans were in the majority, you wanted to do away with the filibuster on judicial nominations. now you're hitting the democrats for taking the same route. why the change? >> i don't know how you could say i thought that way years ago. nobody knows what i was thinking. all i can say is i was very concerned about ever exercising the nuclear option. so was harry reid and chuck schumer -- >> but you did come out for changing the rules at that time. a compromise was reached. but you were willing to change the rules. >> i don't think i did. i continue to vote against filibusters with regards to judicial nominations. i think it's a principled position. whoever the president may be ought to have the full choice of who they put on the bench.

and unless -- unless there's just some overwhelming reason why somebody should never be on the bench. but let's be honest about it, the democrats at that time said that it would be a disaster for the senate, that it would destroy the senate, and harry reid in particular made all kinds of notable statements like that. now using that with the immigration bill, a big major bill, the farm bill, water bill, big major bill. the senate we put through 1564 nominations, and only four were defeated. where's the -- where's the problem here? >> well, senator -- >> they're driven by the unions. >> in the national review in 2005 where you justified the change in rules even though the compromise was reached. trying to have it both ways goes on both sides. we also saw president obama now supporting senator harry reid in changing the rules. here he was as a senator.

>> what they don't expect is for one party, be it republican or democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet. >> much younger looking president obama there. this is the kind of thing that gets a lot of people out in the country upset. they say listen, there's no principle, it depends on the side and whether you have the power or not. >> if i'm on this show and we have a republican president, i'll say the same thing. president should put their team out there. they may put up nominees that fail in committee and have a scandal and then their own party won't to want vote for them. but for the most part, for these nominees, i'm not talking about the judges, but the president's team, of which there are currently over 180 people that are just pending right now before the senate for the executive office nominations, why we can't do 51 votes is beyond me. it's not like we can amend a person.

we have to vote if they're in or they're out. and i don't think we should change the right of the minority to have their views aired on legislation, but when it comes to the president's team, we have so much to work on the economy, we're just talking about the immigration bill, work force training, bringing down the debt in a reasonable way. we're on the precipice right now. the country is in a good position to gain on the international stage. but if we're fighting over an epa director who used to work for mitt romney, and now they're going to stop her from getting confirmed. it's ridiculous. we're going to have a joint -- i wish they did that more in the house -- we are getting together monday evening, and hope to work it out. >> that's one step. we only have a minute left. i want you to weigh in quickly on this. congress ratings are low as they have ever been. you're on track to pass fewer bills than any congress in history. any way to fix it? >> yeah, i think there are.

we have a lot of opportunity. we have a student loan bill, the farm bill, and the end of the fiscal year and the debt ceiling and immigration. you deal with those successfully between now and the end of the year, you will have a terrific congress. if you don't, it's bad. >> possible? >> the way to fix it is, we shouldn't be ruled by a small minority within the congress. within the republican party you have 60 or so people who are to the extreme right and lead the day. >> i'm afraid you started another debate. but that's all we have time for. thank you very much. up next, the powerhouse roundtable with the d.c. tell all that has official washington scrambling. plus eliot spitzer mounted a political comeback, took an early lead, and landed on jay leno's couch. >> you are a brilliant guy, you are someone -- you got the mob in new york, brought down wall street and the banks.

how could you be this stupid? am, a better opportunity for your business, a better legacy to leave the world. we have always believed in this pursuit, striving to bring insight to every investment, and integrity to every plan. we are morgan stanley. and we're ready to work for you. help the gulf recover, andnt to learn from what happenedg goals: so we could be a better, safer energy company. i've been with bp for 24 years. i was part of the team that helped deliver on our commitments to the gulf - and i can tell you, safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge safety equipment and technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all our drilling activity, twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned,

so we can all produce energy more safely. safety is a vital part of bp's commitment to america - and to the nearly 250,000 people who work with us here. we invest more in the u.s. than anywhere else in the world. over fifty-five billion dollars here in the last five years - making bp america's largest energy investor. our commitment has never been stronger.

welcome back. we're mere -- here with the powerhouse roundtable. standing by to talk about a year packed with political comebacks, anthony weiner is in new york's mayor race, and the latest in new york, eliot spitzer resigned in disgrace five years ago after getting caught with prostitutes. there he is, entering the race for comptroller. the city's second most powerful job. he joins us from manhattan. thank you for joining us this morning. i want to get to your comeback, but first the breaking news on the george zimmerman verdict. you're a former prosecutor, former attorney general, was justice served? >> this is a failure of justice. i don't think there's any other way to view it. the judicial system is not perfect. in this case, it is failed.

before we get into a conversation about whether the prosecution was flewed, handled it in a different way. there's a simple reality here, an innocent young man was walking down the street, confronted by a stranger with a gun, and he was shot. criminal justice system should be able to deal with that. they didn't. >> should the justice department step in? >> well, they will step in, but they're in a dicey position. there has been a criminal case. double jeopardy is a fundamental principle in the american judicial system, as it should be. it's going to be hard for them to come back at the defendant. boy, this is understandably a hugely emotional moment for people who say this could have been my kid, my son. where are we with the principles of justice? there are notable examples of where it failed. it is not perfect. it is still the best system in the world, bar none. the jury system is what we have to rely upon, but in this case, it failed. >> and now to your race for comptroller of new york.

you didn't expect to run again. you were back on the streets and really shook up the race, and instantly became the biggest topic of conversation in new york. here's the cover of new york magazine. coming out tomorrow, it shows you and anthony weiner, you on one side and he on the other. and your opponents are saying things about it. here's quinn on the question with both of them is what have they done to earn the second chance? i don't think we see all that much from either of them where they redeem themselves from their selfish behavior and earned a second chance from new york's voters. what's your response? >> my response is i have done a fair bit, talked, written, participated, hosted tv shows, i'll leave you to judge whether that is a moment or not. but i have done things that are important. >> have some faith in the voters. >> that may be the case. nobody in the media. but they asked them for forgiveness, but look at my record. the independence of my voice

when it came to wall street, to standing up on the environment, low wage workers, immigrants. we were talking about immigrant rights just a few moments ago on your show. years ago, i said they should have driver's licenses, the heavens descended upon me. it's now the law of the land. it's accepted. we have been ahead of the curve. and fundamentally, independent on the issues of finance and wall street, and the integrity of the office, which is what it's about. my mandate is to be a fiscal watchdog. make sure the pension funds are invested well. make sure the city's budget is being spent to where it should be spent and the purposes to which it should be. i don't take polls and rely upon them, but the poll numbers look for an independent voice in the position. that is what i promise. >> as you know, your opponent said you're a lawbreaker, failed governor. that should disqualify you. >> opponents will say that. voters will make the decision.

i think the voters are beginning to be heard. i see it in the street, when i talked to voters and citizens, you have owned up to it, you looked the public in the eye five years ago. and you said you believed in accountability and stepped forward and took responsibility. that's what i did. that's a fundamental point the public should look at, and hope give some deference to. but the record i acquired as an attorney general, as a low-level prosecutor, and high-level cases against organized crime. and governor where we reformed the state budget, fully funded education, reformed health care, the unemployment compensation system. and there's a lot of push back from wall street, they have won, they are right, and years before 2008, not just that these were individual cases, but there's a systemic problem that we need to confront. that was the argument i was making. it's an argument i make in a book i have coming out called protecting capitalism. the book said it must be

protected. that is what we believe in. >> and that record before the voters. thanks very much. with that, let's welcome our roundtable. mark leibovich, author of this town, brand new book on tuesday, creating controversy in washington. maggie abraham, and tavis smiley of pbs. let me begin with you, you were out there all week long with spitzer. and this poll he was probably referring to. i guess this shouldn't be a surprise. he's a well-known man. he is leading the race for comptroller. 42-32 over scott stringer. and more than two-thirds of democrats saying he does indeed deserve that second chance. is that what you saw on the streets? >> no. it is not what i saw on the streets. but i do think it's what we're going to see at the ballot box. if nothing else comes out, and stringer can't make a credible case, nobody knows him, he's a nice man, i know him, he's not a known commodity. spit -- spitzer is. it's largely won on name recognition.

i think what you saw, he did do that in the debate. he will eat stringer alive. >> what did you see in the streets? >> people were standing back and not believing what we were see. we weren't, candidly. but people will remember the better parts of his record. i think the public does believe in redemption. it hurts anthony weiner. it's hard for to have a path forward. >> do you? >> i think i do. much to my regret. if you are going to run for office -- you have to seek forgiveness. you have to be contrite. i don't hear any contrition. i think he's sorry about the fact he committed a crime as chief law enforcement of the state. i don't hear anything about the way he abused his power. accusing people and not bringing criminal charges. trying to force people out. i think he damaged aig by forcing out good management and letting it go to people --

>> he's facing a lawsuit from the former head of aig. and we will see wall street rise up and try to stop it. >> he almost never brought cases that went to trial. he used his power through leak and the media to be able to try cases in public. but when he went to trial, he lost. that's not the way you should behave as somebody who the voters have entrusted with discretion in power. >> but the voters are forgiving of personal failings. >> they are. i think that what turns us off is hypocrisy, not mistakes. these are bad mistakes on the part of these two men. i believe, since i've made mistakes in my own life choice, the some of the man is not the sum of the man. we make mistakes. here's what troubles me. it seems in new york and around the country, there are only a handful of people who are qualified to be high-quality public servants. as if there aren't more citizens

who should put themselves up. what concerns me is the dearth is paucity of citizens who should put their names in the hats. as if they are the only guys to save the city. that bothers me. >> anthony had a huge war chest left over from his congressional race. and spitzer has a huge fortune and the name recognition. >> we have seen the cycle of rise and fall and rehabilitation and instant front-runnerness if you throw your hat into the ring, it's tight and small. one of the larger lessons i have learned about washington is that the neutral sheen of notoriety takes over. >> neutral sheen of notoriety. >> i actually -- >> the -- all publicity is good? >> no. i don't think so. if i were smart enough, i would have thought about that. the right or wrong becomes secondary to the winning and losing to the actual fame

itself. >> that's one of the sub texts of your book, this town. this is really something. it's not even out yet, it comes out on tuesday. >> yeah. >> you've created an avalanche of headlines. we're going to see them up on the screen right now. all kinds of reaction to this, a washington takedown, the preenipreen ing egos of this town, the rolling swamp of washington. you're creating conversation. i read the book. it's a fascinating look at the personalities of washington. you're not afraid to prick a lot of egos. although it seems you're a little bit uncomfortable with it even as you're doing it. >> i'm not uncomfortable, but i'm transparent that i am a member of the media, i'm attached to a major news organization. i love politics. i cover it willingly. i don't have the luxury of being a foreign correspondent who can

dive into town and burn down the village. these are people i know, and i will have to talk about my role in it. i don't think i'm uncomfortable. when you have been a journalist as long as you have in washington, you get used the social awkward nns and being able to take shots. >> what is your big take after looking at the circus of the last few years, what's the blowback? >> the blowback is weird. there's so much anticipation around this thing, and no one's read it until hopefully now. it's leaked out, and people will be able to buy it. the big takeaway is i'm not picking on any one individual or any one institution. >> picking on everybody. >> it's the whole machine. it's a profile of a city in the 21st century at a time when i think self-service has replaced public service as the real play. and i think that, look,

people fundamentally are disappointed in washington. i don't think they have the full appreciation for the full cinemagraphic carnival this has become. >> what i found fascinating, i have read the excerpts from it, what i found fascinating is the extent to which the american public doesn't know the coziness between the two parties. what we see on tv, on "this week," or abc, or anywhere else around the dial, is this notion that democrats and republicans go at it all the time. what you unveiled and revealed is what happens when they hang out. >> i would say that one of the great misconceptions is washington is hopelessly divided. it's hopelessly interconnected. democrats, republicans, the media, k street. it has become what senator coburn calls a permanent feudal class of people who are doing very, very well. the rest of the country -- >> the insiders, and putting you both on the spot.

sitting next to maggie of politico. your publication comes in for the microscopic criticism. here's one of the things that mark writes, politico is prone to trafficking, suggestive notions, driving the conversation. it gets picked up on cable and blogs, i'm hearing talk about. and something that's getting buzz to the point where the coverage is a viable possibility, something out there, which is exactly what we're doing with your book. the criticism of politico? >> i think that was a wet slap as opposed to a punch. i'm proud of politico. i like mike allen a lot. i think we have made driving the conversation and winning the morning as part of our ethos. i don't think that comes as a surprise. i don't think mark thinks that's a surprise. >> i want to thank mark for reminding americans that washington is a roiling swamp with a feudal class. we write about that just about every day at the wall street journal. and to get to tavis's point,

one of the things both parties have in common is both parties spend other people's money. washington would be a lot less important, and journalists would have to cover it less if washington were smaller. which would be better for everybody. >> yeah, again, you're all making my point very effectively. no. i do think, right, i think, again, it's the point that everyone is doing extremely well. whang people miss, and washington has been very unpopular, people have always run against washington,. what's really changed over the last couple of decades is just the flood of money into the city. the city has become the most prosperous city in the united states. it's home to seven of the top ten most wealthy countries in the united states, the area. and just the media, the saturation of new media has made fame a very easy thing to attain. it's made second acts much easier, it's made wealth much easier, and frankly, no one

leaves. >> i did. >> we'll be right back with our "sunday spotlight." kids ruled at the u.n. this week, all to support a very special friend. we'll hear from malala. "i'm part of an american success story,"

"that starts with one of the world's most advanced distribution systems," "and one of the most efficient trucking networks," "with safe, experienced drivers." "we work directly with manufacturers," "eliminating costly markups," "and buy directly from local farmers in every region of the country." "when you see our low prices, remember the wheels turning behind the scenes, delivering for millions of americans, everyday. "dedication: that's the real walmart"

she is the youngest person ever to be nominated for the nobel peace prize, and entered the united nations this week to a standing ovation. 16-year-old malala yousafzai is next. yis next. when we made our commitment to the gulf, bp had two big goals: help the gulf recover, and learn from what happened so we could be a better, safer energy company. i've been with bp for 24 years. i was part of the team that helped deliver

on our commitments to the gulf - and i can tell you, safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge safety equipment and technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all our drilling activity, twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. safety is a vital part of bp's commitment to america - and to the nearly 250,000 people who work with us here. we invest more in the u.s. than anywhere else in the world. over fifty-five billion dollars here in the last five years - making bp america's largest energy investor. our commitment has never been stronger.

in our "sunday spotlight" this morning, a young woman who is captivating the world with her courage. the taliban tried to kill malala yousafzai just because she wants girls in pakistan to get the same education as boys. but she survived that bullet to the brain and this week brought her message of hope and determination to the world stage. bob woodruff was at the u.n. when she spoke. >> this is not my day. i speak not for myself, but for those without voice, so they can be heard. >> reporter: 16-year-old malala yousafzai has a burning hunger to learn. the pakistani teen was brutally attacked on her way home from school just nine months ago. >> and the thought that the bullet would silence us -- but they failed. weakness, fear, and hopelessness died. strength and courage was born. >> reporter: as word of the

tragedy spread, so did her following. >> they shot her at point blank range in the head. and made her stronger. >> the taliban recognized this young girl as a serious threat. and you know what, they were right. she was a threat. >> reporter: a threat which awakened the world to an education emergency around the globe. 57 million children, most of them girls, forced out of school and subject to early marriage or child labor. but malala dreamed of a better life. she wanted to be a doctor when she was younger, now she's not going to be? >> your circumstances tell you and it teaches you what to be done. she came to the conclusion if she becomes a doctor she may have patients in hospital, but she wanted to be the doctor of society, the doctor for country, and a politician can do that. they make a difference.

>> we call upon the world leaders that all of these leaders must protect women and children's rights. ideals that go against the rights of women is unacceptable. >> reporter: so hand in hand at the united nations with the secretary general, and a little boost from a soap box, the pakistani schoolgirl launched a 21st century civil rights movement that's inspiring millions. >> i feel like i've just witnessed one of the greatest speeches of our generation. >> it was because of her spirit. >> malala is the epitome of what a girl can do when educated. >> reporter: it's hard to imagine an impact from someone so young, just now celebrating turning 16. the former british prime minister with a poignant reminder, it was a day that almost didn't come. >> let me repeat the words, the words the taliban never wanted her to hear.

happy 16th birthday, malala. >> one child, one teacher, one book, and one pen can change the world. >> reporter: for "this week," bob woodruff, abc news, new york. >> and she is going to change the world. that was really something. thank you to bob, thanks for the discussion today. and diane sawyer is going to have an exclusive interview with malala when her book comes out this fall. and good news from the pentagon this week, they did not announce any service members killed in action. that's the first since february. thank you for sharing part of your sunday with us. check out ""world news tonight" with david muir, and i'll see you on "gma."

>> in the news this morning, frustration over the verdict in the george zimmerman murder trial spills over into the streets of oakland. we will tell what you happened and when another protest is planned for today. and the shocking death of one of the stars of "glee." >> and low clouds continue to spill into the bay area. i will let you know when you can expect to see sunshine in your neighb