Lois Lerner, the IRS official who oversees the agency’s division in charge of tax-exempt organizations, has been placed on administrative leave, a source told NBC News on Thursday. The IRS has selected Ken Corbin as acting director during Lerner's absence.

Lerner, whose responsibility for the targeting of conservative groups at the IRS has become a point of scrutiny in the controversy, had come under bipartisan fire. Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John McCain, R-Ariz., wrote acting IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel earlier on Thursday seeking Lerner’s suspension.

Lerner had appeared before a House committee on Wednesday, but invoked her Fifth Amendment rights, and declined to testify. She offered a broad declaration denying any wrongdoing, however, which has prompted some Republicans to conclude she had effectively waived her Fifth Amendment rights. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who heads the oversight panel before which Lerner appeared, suggested Thursday he’ll seek to recall her as a witness.

This story was originally published on Thu May 23, 2013 5:52 PM EDT

President Barack Obama was repeatedly interrupted by a heckler whose taunts slowed the delivery of a major national security speech in the Washington, D.C. area.

The unidentified heckler began shouting at the president toward the tail end of his highly-anticipated address, when he touched upon U.S. policy toward detainees suspected of terrorist acts.

Obama was forced to pause three separate times and talk over the protester, interrupting the flow of the closing section of the speech at National Defense University.

“I'm about to address it ma'am, but you've got to let me speak,” Obama scolded the woman. “Why don't you sit down and let me tell you exactly what I'd do."

The antiwar group Code Pink, which often interrupts high-profile political events with vocal protests against U.S. foreign policy and national security strategy, said its founder Medea Benjamin was the person responsible for the interruption.

Though the president appeared somewhat irritated by the interruption, he said he was willing to cut the woman “some slack, because it’s worth being passionate about.”

He added after another interruption: “The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to. Obviously I do not agree with much of what she said. And obviously she wasn’t listening to me and much of what I said. But these are tough issues, and the suggestion that we can gloss over them is wrong.”

Thursday wasn’t the only instance in which Obama was interrupted during a high-profile speech. During remarks last year about immigration at the White House, a conservative reporter, Neil Munro, heckled the president with a question about the impact of his announcement that day.

This story was originally published on Thu May 23, 2013 3:06 PM EDT

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid indicated Thursday that he may postpone a confrontation with Republicans over stalled nominations until after the Senate considers the bipartisan immigration bill that the Judiciary Committee OK’d Tuesday.

“I am not going to do anything to interfere with the immigration bill,” he said.

At issue was the so-called “nuclear option,” a possible move by Reid and the Democrats to unilaterally curb filibusters by a simple majority vote, instead of by 67 votes as required by Senate rules.

Reid charged at a press conference Thursday that Republican foot-dragging had delayed or blocked confirmation of several key Obama nominees, with Republican senators submitting more than 1,100 written questions to Gina McCarthy, Obama’s choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency.

McCarthy, Labor Secretary nominee Tom Perez, consumer financial watchdog Richard Cordray,  and five nominees to the National Labor Relations Board are awaiting confirmation.

“Presidents need to have the team they want when they want them – and this is not working” Reid said told reporters. “It is time for this gridlock to end – that is my message.” He added, “There are no threats – we simply want the Senate to work the way that it should.” 

He added later, “We’re not threatening anybody with anything.”

But Sen. Charles Schumer, D- N.Y. argued that “the public would be happy to hear that the Senate is changing the way it is doing business. So the other side (the Republicans) must be careful – if they think they can win a debate over whether the Senate should change its rules, they might very well be mistaken.”

In a big victory for Obama, the Senate unanimously voted Thursday to confirm Sri Srinivasan to serve on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Senate Republican Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, R- Ky. indicated Wednesday that Republicans supported Srinivasan, a lawyer who has served in the Solicitor General’s office in both the Bush and Obama administrations, calling him "a nominee we all agree on.... We like him."

Discussing Srinivasan, Schumer smiled as he said to reporters, “We may be seeing him coming before the Senate again soon,” – a reference to speculation that Obama might nominate Srinivasan to the Supreme Court if a vacancy occurs. 

But looming in the weeks ahead is a potentially incendiary standoff over what many Democrats are urging: a change in Senate rules to end filibusters of nominees.

In 2005, Senate Republicans threatened to use the “nuclear option” after Democrats blocked votes on nominees to the federal courts by President George W. Bush. The roles were reversed in 2005 with Democrats supporting filibusters of nominee and Republicans accusing them of obstructionism. Eventually the two sides settled their dispute and allowed several Bush nominees to be confirmed to the federal bench.

Reid reminisced Wednesday about the agreement that Democrats had struck with Republicans on confirming those nominees. He said, “We agreed to put some people on the bench that we have regretted since then -- Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith, Brett Kavanaugh” – all of whom are judges now serving on the D.C. Circuit appeals court.

This story was originally published on Thu May 23, 2013 1:42 PM EDT

Obama to scale back his administration’s drone policy… Also expected in his 2:00 pm ET national security speech: better securing diplomatic facilities and stating his desire to close Gitmo… About that Holder letter… WaPo on the White House trying to shield Obama from IRS investigation… Cruz: “I don’t trust the Republicans”… Scott Walker heads to the Hawkeye State… And Happy (upcoming) Memorial Day weekend.

Pool / Getty Images

President Barack Obama delivers remarks at a concert honoring singer-songwriter Carole King with the 2013 Library of Congress Gershwin Prize for Popular Song at the White House on May 22, 2013.

*** Obama to scale back drone policy: In his first major national security speech of his second term, President Obama today is expected to both defend -- but also announce changes to -- his administration’s use of drones to kill suspected terrorists and foreign enemies. “A new classified policy guidance signed by Mr. Obama will sharply curtail the instances when unmanned aircraft can be used to attack in places that are not overt war zones, countries like Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia,” the New York Times reports. “The rules will impose the same standard for strikes on foreign enemies now used only for American citizens deemed to be terrorists” -- i.e., force can be used against targets who are 1) an imminent threat against Americans, and 2) cannot be feasibly captured. The Times also says that the Obama administration will shift control of drone strikes from the CIA to the U.S. military. “The significance is the Pentagon will now control the drone program, which increases transparency both for Congress and the American people,” NBC terrorism analyst Roger Cressey said on “TODAY” this morning.

*** What’s also expected in the speech: A White House official, per NBC’s Shawna Thomas, says that the president’s speech also will discuss better securing U.S. diplomatic facilities (after the 2012 Benghazi attack), balancing security while protecting civil liberties at home (see the leak investigations), and stating his desire to close the Guantanamo Bay prison (an action which Congress opposes). Don’t be surprised if Obama says something along the lines of, “We will never send another detainee to Gitmo” as a way to express his willingness to close the facility. And don’t be surprised if he addresses -- head on -- the Justice Department’s seizure of reporters’ phone records in its prosecution of national security leaks. Obama delivers his remarks at 2:00 pm ET at the National Defense University in DC.

*** About that Holder letter: Obama’s remarks come a day after Attorney General Eric Holder released a letter acknowledging -- for the first time by the administration -- that four American citizens were killed in U.S. drone strikes. NBC’s Pete Williams says the letter discloses what had been widely reported and known: that three citizens were killed in counter-terrorism operations, including Anwar al Awlaki. The letter also gives the legal justification for those drone strikes. And finally, Williams adds, it discloses the death of an additional U.S. citizen, Jude Kenan Mohammed, who was indicted by a federal grand jury in North Carolina for taking part in a plot to stage a terror attack against US military targets. Speaking of drones, the Feb. 2013 NBC/WSJ poll found that 64% of Americans favored using them to target suspected members of Al Qaeda and other terrorists, while 12% opposed and another 22% didn’t have an opinion. And in a separate question, 42% said the program should be continued, and 28% said it should be changed or modified.

*** The Shield: Turning from national security to the domestic/political controversies hitting the Obama administration, the Washington Post notes what we did yesterday about the IRS story -- that the White House’s top goal was to ensure that Obama had nothing to do with it. “This account of how the White House tried to deal with the IRS inquiry … shows how carefully Obama’s top aides were trying to shield him from any second-term scandal that might swamp his agenda or, worse, jeopardize his presidency.” The Post story also reveals that the White House brought in many of the old hands to manage the P.R. relating to the inspector general’s report. “Late last week, [White House Chief of Staff Denis] McDonough summoned Plouffe and a cadre of former Obama and Clinton advisers — including Stephanie Cutter, Robert Gibbs, Anita Dunn, Paul Begala and Mike McCurry — to the White House for two separate public relations strategy sessions. White House aides said they urged getting out information about the IRS situation as quickly as possible, and provided advice on refocusing attention on Obama’s jobs agenda.”

*** Cruz: “I don’t trust the Republicans”: Here’s something you don’t see every day: A U.S. senator announcing, on the Senate floor, that he doesn’t trust his own party. Of course, in his first few months in office, Ted Cruz isn’t your average senator. “The senior senator from Arizona urged this body to trust the Republicans,” Cruz said, per Politico referring to Sen. John McCain in the debate over whether to go to conference in the budget negotiations. “Let me be clear, I don’t trust the Republicans. I don’t trust the Democrats and I think a whole lot of Americans likewise don’t trust the Republicans or the Democrats because it is leadership in both parties that has got us into this mess.”

*** Scott Walker heads to the Hawkeye State: Meanwhile, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker today travels to Iowa, where he addresses the Polk County, IA GOP dinner that begins at 7:00 pm ET. We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: Walker could very well be the most significant 2016er on the GOP side that no one is talking about right now. There is A LOT of room for a presidential candidate who hails from outside of Washington.

*** State shopping isn’t the best policy for success: Don’t miss the piece on the “Daily Rundown” site about how politicians who run for office in one state and then another usually don’t have that much success.

*** Happy Memorial Day: Lastly, to get an early start on the upcoming Memorial Day weekend, your morning First Read note won’t be publishing on Friday. We’ll return on Tuesday. Happy Memorial Day!!!

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

With one of President Barack Obama’s key nominees on the verge of being confirmed by the Senate on Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid appeared to edge away Wednesday from an idea that some Democrats are calling for: enacting a change in Senate rules to stop filibusters which delay votes on Obama appointees.

During a debate on the Senate floor with Republican Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, Reid said, "I'm not saying we're going to change the rules" regarding the filibuster, but argued that the Senate must move faster to confirm Obama nominees.

He accused Republicans of “slow-walking” nominees and bogging them down by submitting hundreds and, in one case, a thousand written questions to the nominee before the confirmation vote could occur.

Alex Wong / Getty Images

Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid speaks after a weekly Senate Democratic caucus meeting May 21, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.

McConnell accused Reid of using the threat of a unilateral change in in Senate rules – the so-called “nuclear option” – to create “the majority’s own culture of intimidation right here in the Senate.”

The roles were reversed back in 2005 when the Republican majority, including McConnell, threatened to use the “nuclear option” to stop Democratic filibusters, supported by Reid at the time, of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees.

McConnell noted Wednesday that Republicans had agreed to an up-or-down vote on Obama’s nomination of Sri Srinivasan to serve on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, with that vote to occur the Tuesday after the Senate returns from its one-week Memorial Day recess.

“Instead the majority leader chose to jam the minority,” McConnell complained, accusing the Democrats of “manufacturing a crisis to justify their heavy-handed behavior.”

Reid moved on Tuesday to limit debate on Srinivasan and have his confirmation vote Thursday.

McConnell called Srinivasan "a nominee we all agree on.... we like him" and argued that speeding up his nearly certain confirmation was Reid gratuitously using his power.

Srinivasan is crucial because so far in the four and a half years of his presidency, Obama has gotten no one confirmed to that court, which handles most legal challenges to regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory bodies and serves as a major stepping stone to the Supreme Court.

In March, Republicans blocked a confirmation vote on another Obama nominee to that court, Caitlin Halligan.

 “You have a majority on that court that is wreaking havoc with the country,” Reid said, adding that with further GOP delays perhaps the judges on that court will issue more opinions in the next couple of weeks favorable to the Republicans – as that court did in January when it ruled that Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional since he had made them when there was no Senate recess.

Reid also reminisced Wednesday about the agreement that he and other Democrats had struck with Republicans in 2005 on confirming Bush’s judicial nominees, an agreement that was made under the threat of the Republicans using the nuclear option.

He said, “We agreed to put some people on the bench that we have regretted since then -- Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith, Brett Kavanaugh” – all of whom are judges now serving on the D.C. Circuit appeals court.

Awaiting Senate action after the Memorial Day recess are other nominees such as Thomas Perez to be labor secretary, Gina McCarthy to head the EPA, and five Obama nominees to serve on the National Labor Relations Board.

George Kohl, senior director for the Communications Workers of America, a labor union, said he didn’t interpret Reid’s comment Wednesday as him ruling out any future use of the nuclear option.

For the CWA, the NLRB nominees are crucial. “If they don’t get that (floor) vote in July, the Labor Board will cease to function on Aug. 27 when the chairman’s term expires. We think that’s a crisis for America.”

If McConnell doesn’t allow a vote on the NLRB nominees, “we think the rules (on ending debate) need to be changed” so the NLRB can protect workers’ right, Kohl said.

This story was originally published on Wed May 22, 2013 3:36 PM EDT

Lawmakers expressed both anger and bewilderment that IRS leaders had not told Congress sooner about indications that the tax agency had improperly singled out conservatives and Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status.

A highly anticipated hearing by the top investigative committee in the Republican-controlled House delivered on the drama that was expected. Lois Lerner, the IRS official in charge of the division accused of wrongdoing, invoked her Fifth Amendment right against testifying, and defiantly asserted her innocence.

"I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws," she said. "I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations and I have not provided any false information to this or any other committee."

But her refusal to testify left the hearing on an uncertain note. Republicans only recessed the meeting – versus formally adjourning it – and threatened to re-call Lerner, whom they asserted had waived her Fifth Amendment privileges by making her brief statement.

"I am looking into the possibility of recalling her and insist she answer questions in light of a waiver,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the chairman of the committee.

But much of lawmakers' ire was trained on the IRS leadership for failing to disclose any indication of IRS wrongdoing to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, whose inquiry into the matter prompted an inspector general inquiry into targeting of conservative groups. Both Democrats and Republicans voiced outrage that Douglas Shulman, the commissioner of the IRS during much of the abuses, did not tell lawmakers that an internal IRS investigation had suggested improper action by the IRS to single out conservative groups.

"At that point, I didn’t have anything concrete," Shulman responded. "I didn’t have a full set of facts to come back to Congress or the committee with."

His answered angered Democrats as much as Republicans.

"If you didn’t know, you were derelict in your duty," said Issa.

Carolyn Kaster / AP

House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. holds up a document as he speaks to IRS official Lois Lerner on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, May 22, 2013, during the committee's hearing to investigate the extra scrutiny IRS gave to Tea Party and other conservative groups that applied for tax-exempt status.

"You misled Congress. Make no question about it … When you learned there was a list, you did nothing," said Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., who raised the prospect of appointing a special prosecutor in his opening remarks. "You abdicated your responsibility and you allowed Congress to proceed under your prior information that was false, that was untrue."

And for the first time, the IRS inspector general who generated the report that laid out the explosive allegations, J. Russell George, came under scrutiny from lawmakers. Issa pressed George as to why his office hadn't told Congress about indications of targeting at an earlier point during the investigation.

"I think it would behoove all of us to make sure that accurate information is given to Congress so we don’t act precipitously," George responded in reference to his office's actions.

The tense exchanges followed a somewhat explosive opening to the hearing, in which Lerner refused to answer lawmakers’ questions. But she delivered a brief statement explaining her role at the IRS and denying any wrongdoing.

That statement angered committee conservatives, who said that Lerner had essentially offered testimony, and thus had waived her ability to invoke her constitutional right to not testify. Issa dismissed Lerner nonetheless, but warned that his panel might again seek her testimony in the future. Following her dismissal, Lerner’s role remained largely absent through the questioning of the other witnesses.

The scrutiny of the IRS witnesses was characteristic of a hearing that focused far more on the actions of the agency and the subsequent investigation than whether the IRS came under undue influence from the Obama administration to single out conservatives.

The one administration witness, Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin, denied that he had ever directed the targeting of conservative groups. "Absolutely not, congresswoman," he said in response to a question on that matter, one of the few questions he faced during the hearing.

While Republicans have insinuated for much of the last two weeks that the IRS abuses were part of a "culture of intimidation" within the Obama administration, that line of inquiry generally took a backseat during Wednesday's hearing. (By contrast, Republicans focused on finding ties to Obama much more during a hearing last Friday by the House Ways and Means Committee and a hearing Tuesday before the Senate Finance Committee.)

An exception to that came when Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, linked the Obama administration’s assertion that the IRS abuses were limited to rogue employees to its initial assertion following last year’s terror attack in Benghazi that it was the outgrowth of a spontaneous protest. (This assertion about Benghazi was eventually proved wrong, and has become another point of contention between the White House and congressional Republicans.)

Related Stories:

• Ex-Cincy IRS official doubts agency's explanation for Tea Party scandal

This story was originally published on Wed May 22, 2013 10:41 AM EDT

The White House finds itself in a public relations mess… Even as it argues that the press is seeing the trees (like the IG report) but missing the forest (Obama had no role in IRS controversy)… Issa’s committee knew about the IG report, too?... Senate Judiciary Committee clears immigration bill, which now moves to the Senate floor… NYT: The number of drone strikes declines… WaPo on Petraeus’ role in the Benghazi talking points… Florida shooting connected to Boston bombing… Will Weiner get his second chance?... And Garcetti wins LA mayoral run-off.

Jacquelyn Martin / AP

President Barack Obama meets with Myanmar's President Thein Sein in the Oval Office of the White House, Monday, May 20, 2013.

*** The White House’s public relations mess: While there is still no evidence connecting the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups directly to the White House or to the president personally, or to his re-election campaign, it doesn’t mean the White House doesn’t have a PR problem on its hands. And this PR mess is largely self-inflicted. For starters, its explanation about when it learned of the inspector general’s IRS investigation keeps changing. “Just a day after telling reporters that chief of staff Denis McDonough and other senior White House staff learned of the situation nearly a month ago, press secretary Jay Carney revealed Tuesday that White House officials had consulted with the Treasury Department on how to make the findings public,” Politico writes. Then we discover that the IRS official Lois Lerner plans to plead the 5^th Amendment at today’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Both developments make it SEEM like the White House or the administration has something to hide -- even if the evidence (so far) is that Team Obama wasn’t directly connected to this IRS story. And speaking of a PR mess, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney didn’t help things when he compared a question about HHS’s fundraising to questions about the president’s birth certificate. That’s the way a White House acting as if it’s in a bunker mentality responds to legitimate questions.

*** White House: Press is seeing the trees but missing the forest: All that said, the White House believes reporters are seeing the trees but missing the forest. According to an administration official, its P.R. priorities were 1) demonstrating that the president had NO role in this controversy and 2) demanding accountability and new hires immediately. And this official believes both of those priorities have been met. For the White House, all other questions -- including who knew about the IG report and when they knew it -- are secondary, and it has taken them time to get their facts straight. But that explanation also assumes that the White House’s story won’t continue to change. And that gets at the issue of a credibility problem. And right now, the White House press shop has a credibility problem with many reporters in that press room. And assuming they have nothing to hide, it’s a self-inflicted credibility problem.

*** Issa’s committee knew about the IG report, too? Speaking of the IG report, the inspector general who investigated the IRS’s targeting of conservative-sounding groups testified at the Senate Finance Committee yesterday that Rep. Darrell Issa’s House Oversight Committee also knew about the report back in 2012 and communicated with the IG’s office. So Democrats argue something along the lines of, “Issa’s committee knew about it, too, and didn’t say anything public!!!” But an Issa spokesman tells First Read, “The administration is trying to draw a false a parallel between its own responsibilities and an Oversight Committee that requested the IG audit. This includes a false characterization that the Committee voluntarily waited for [the IG’s office] to complete its investigation. In reality, the committee made extensive efforts to ask [the inspector general] if wrongdoing had been found but was rebuffed on multiple occasions. Administration officials drawing a false parallel have offered no evidence that they made a similar effort to learn all that they could about wrongdoing.” 

*** Senate Judiciary Committee clears immigration bill: Despite everything else happening (IRS, the Oklahoma disaster, etc.), the immigration train keeps moving forward. By a 13-5 vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday approved the sweeping bipartisan immigration-reform legislation, which now heads to the Senate floor. Per NBC’s Carrie Dann, “Three Republicans -- Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Orrin Hatch of Utah -- joined the panel's 10 Democrats to vote in favor of the bill. Flake and Graham are both members of the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" that originally drafted the 844-page immigration legislation. Hatch's support was won after the Utah lawmaker secured changes to the bill's provisions for the hiring of high-skilled foreign workers.” But there also was some drama, Dann notes. “In an emotional moment shortly before final passage, committee chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont announced that he would not call for a vote on an amendment that would have recognized the marriages of same-sex spouses in immigration law. Republicans in the bipartisan Gang of Eight said the LGBT measure would have broken apart the fragile coalition crafted by the bill's drafters.” The decision to pull the same-sex amendment only highlights the fact that Leahy wasn’t in charge of his own committee hearing; Chuck Schumer was.  

*** NYT: The number of drone strikes decline: A day before Obama’s speech on national security at the National Defense University, the New York Times reports that the number of drone strikes overseas has declined. “Strikes in Pakistan peaked in 2010 and have fallen sharply since then; their pace in Yemen has slowed to half of last year’s rate; and no strike has been reported in Somalia for more than a year.” We expect that the president will discuss the drone wars, as well the Guatanamo Bay prison. But it would also be a smart place for Obama to discuss and either defend, denounce, or explain the Justice Department tough actions against national-security leaks, which seem to have infringed on press freedoms. If he fails to use tomorrow’s speech to deal with the press’ growing anger about the targeting of individual journalists, it could be a missed opportunity.

*** On Petraeus’ role in the Benghazi talking points: We’ve told you that the fight over the Benghazi talking points seemed to be more bureaucratic politics than electoral politics. And this Washington Post article seems to further confirm that. “A close reading of recently released government e-mails that were sent during the editing process, and interviews with senior officials from several government agencies, reveal [former CIA head David] Petraeus’s early role and ambitions in going well beyond the committee’s request, apparently to produce a set of talking points favorable to his image and his agency. The information Petraeus ordered up when he returned to his Langley office that morning included far more than the minimalist version that [Rep.] Ruppersberger had requested. It included early classified intelligence assessments of who might be responsible for the attack and an account of prior CIA warnings — information that put Petraeus at odds with the State Department, the FBI and senior officials within his own agency.” 

*** Florida shooting connected to Boston bombing: Don’t be surprised if this story grabs a lot more attention later today. “An FBI agent was involved in a fatal shooting in Orlando early Wednesday that a local TV station says may have ties to the Boston Marathon bombings,” USA Today writes. “FBI officials have confirmed that a man died while one of its agents was "conducting official duties," the Orlando Sentinelreports, but would not elaborate. WESH-TV [an NBC affiliate] identifies the victim as 27-year-old Ibragim Todashev.” NBC’s Richard Esposito reports that the shooting IS connected to Boston bombing case. “It is connected in that the person shot is linked to Tsarnaev and has associates who are extremists overseas. They were interviewing him regarding his connections to Tsarnaev. He had been interviewed before. He started out cooperative. Flipped out. Went to attack agent. Then was shot.”

*** Will Weiner get his second chance? Anthony Weiner has released a slick two-minute video announcing his bid for New York mayor. "Look, I made some big mistakes, and I know I let a lot of people down,” he says in the video, which also features his wife Huma Abedin and young son. “But I've also learned some tough lessons. I'm running for mayor because I’ve been fighting for the middle class and those struggling my entire life. And I hope I get a second chance to work for you." Later in the video, wife Huma adds, “We love this city, and no one will work harder to make it better than Anthony.” While we still have our doubts that Weiner becomes NYC’s next mayor, his presence in the race likely means that front-runner Christine Quinn would face a run-off -- one in which she could struggle.

*** Garcetti to become LA’s next mayor: And in Los Angeles’ mayoral run-off, City Councilman Eric Garcetti defeated City Comptroller Wendy Greuel by eight percentage points, 54%-46%, succeeding outgoing Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. The Los Angeles Times: “Garcetti will be the first elected Jewish mayor of the city. At 42, he will also be the youngest in more than a century. He is scheduled to take office July 1.” More: “At $33 million, the mayoral campaign was the most expensive in city history. The flood of money and advertising from those groups largely went toward tearing down the two contenders, alienating many Angelenos who hadn't already been left cold.”

http://is.gd/ccxyrR%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on http://is.gd/TzuR1b%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Facebook and also on http://is.gd/hkhSDT%22%20%5Ct%20%22_blank">Twitter. Follow us @http://twitter.com/#!/chucktodd">chucktodd, @http://twitter.com/#!/mmurraypolitics">mmurraypolitics, @http://twitter.com/#!/DomenicoNBC">DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

Drew Angerer / The New York Times via Redux Pictures

Supporters of immigration reform cheer after the Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation to overhaul the nation's immigration laws on Tuesday.

A sweeping bill to overhaul the nation's immigration system cleared its first major hurdle late Tuesday night, with the 18-member committee charged with completing a first round of legislative edits voting to advance the amended bill to the full Senate.  

The vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee was 13-5.  

Three Republicans - Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Orrin Hatch of Utah -- joined the panel's 10 Democrats to vote in favor of the bill. 

Flake and Graham are both members of the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" that originally drafted the 844-page immigration legislation. Hatch's support was won after the Utah lawmaker secured changes to the bill's provisions for the hiring of high-skilled foreign workers.  

Five Republicans - Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn of Texas, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Mike Lee of Utah and Jeff Sessions of Alabama -- voted against the legislation. 

The measure will now head to the Senate floor. 

In a statement, President Barack Obama - who has made the passage of immigration reform the top legislative goal of his second term -- lauded the committee for its "open and inclusive process" and said the legislation as approved is "largely consistent with the principles of commonsense reform I have proposed." 

"I encourage the full Senate to bring this bipartisan bill to the floor at the at the earliest possible opportunity and remain hopeful that the amendment process will lead to further improvements," he said. 

Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, who does not serve on the panel but is a crucial player in wooing fellow conservatives to support the bill, similarly praised the committee but noted that "work still remains to be done."

"Immigration reform will not become law unless we can earn the confidence of the American people that we are solving our immigration problems once and for all," he said, adding that he is "optimistic" that the bill can be satisfactorily improved on the Senate floor. 

On Tuesday, the top Republican in the upper chamber affirmed that he will not block the immigration proposal from being debated by the full Senate.

“I think the Gang of Eight has made a substantial contribution in moving the issue forward," Sen. Mitch McConnell told reporters. "I’m told that the Judiciary Committee hasn’t in any fundamental way undone the agreements that were agreed by the eight senators, so I’m hopeful we can get a bill that we can pass here in the Senate.”

In an emotional moment shortly before final passage, committee chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont announced that he would not call for a vote on an amendment that would have recognized the marriages of same-sex spouses in immigration law. 

Republicans in the bipartisan Gang of Eight said the LGBT measure would have broken apart the fragile coalition crafted by the bill's drafters. 

As written, the bill would open a 13-year path to citizenship for qualified undocumented immigrants, establish a new program for low-skilled temporary workers, require new border security strategies and implement a nationwide employment verification system. 

Conservatives who oppose the reform proposal say that it fails to secure the border adequately and does not do enough to prevent a new wave of illegal immigration into the country.

Throughout five days of marathon work sessions, senators on the panel tweaked the bill's provisions for modifying immigrant worker programs, tracking foreign nationals who overstay visas and implementing new border security measures along the nation's southern border. 

But Flake and Graham -- the two Republican members of the Gang of Eight who serve on the committee - joined with Democrats to vote down amendments deemed a threat to the "Gang of Eight" compromise.

When the final vote was announced, attendees in the hearing room broke into cheers of "Si se puede!" and "Yes we can!" 

This story was originally published on Tue May 21, 2013 8:04 PM EDT

A top IRS official scheduled to testify Wednesday before the House Oversight committee has notified Congress that she will invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions.

Lois Lerner, head of the IRS unit which handled tax-exempt organizations, won't answer questions about what she knows about the improper screening of conservative groups or about why she repeatedly failed to tell Congress that such targeting was going on, according to a letter from her lawyer, William W. Taylor 3rd. 

The news of Lerner's intention to invoke the Fifth Amendment was first reported Tuesday by the L.A. Times.

Some members of Congress have called for Lerner to be relieved of her responsibilities. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) alleged that she gave false and misleading testimony to Congress.

Her lawyer wrote, "She has not committed any crime or made any misrepresentation, but under the circumstances she has no choice but to take this course."

A spokesman for the House committee said: "The Committee has been contacted by Ms. Lerner's lawyer who stated that his client intended to invoke her Fifth Amendment right and refuse to answer questions. Ms. Lerner remains under subpoena from Chairman Issa to appear at tomorrow's hearing -- the Committee has a Constitutional obligation to conduct oversight. Chairman Issa remains hopeful that she will ultimately decide to testify tomorrow about her knowledge of outrageous IRS targeting of Americans for their political beliefs."

An FBI criminal investigation has been launched into whether any of the IRS actions were illegal and potentially into whether senior officials lied to Congress. Given that, testifying under oath carries added legal risk. 

With a final committee vote on a comprehensive immigration reform bill finally in sight, proponents of immigration reform won the support of a key Republican panel member after hammering out a bipartisan compromise dealing with visas for high-skilled foreign workers.

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, long considered a Republican swing vote on the 18-member Senate Judiciary Committee, announced Tuesday night that he will vote the comprehensive immigration reform bill out of committee after the panel approved language relaxing restrictions on employers seeking to hire foreign workers for high-tech jobs. But he cautioned that he may vote against the bill on Senate floor if other changes to the legislation are not made.

Gary Cameron / Reuters

Sen. Orrin Hatch, the co-chair of the Senate Finance Committee, questions witnesses during testimony in Washington May 21, 2013.

The new language was the result of a deal between Hatch and Gang of Eight negotiator Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York, designed specifically to woo the Utah Republican but risking the ire of labor groups who believe the changes will hurt American workers who are qualified for the same high-tech jobs.

"We have been and remain opposed to Hatch's amendments," AFL-CIO spokesman Jeff Hauser said of the compromise language. "On the same say day that the Senate is grilling Apple for tax avoidance, it is a mistake to support an amendment so that tech companies can avoid hiring qualified American workers."

The Hatch-Schumer amendment passed by voice vote. Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the panel, attempted to change its provisions, but his amendments were voted down

As written, the bill would initially raise the cap the number of H1-B visas from 65,000 to 110,000 -- with provisions to increase that number to 180,000.

Gang of Eight negotiator Sen. Marco Rubio, who has worked to garner support for the legislation among his fellow Republicans, welcomed Hatch's backing for the bill. 

"The Senate Judiciary Committee’s approval of Senator Hatch’s proposal to improve the H-1B visa provisions in the immigration legislation address key concerns shared by many conservatives," he said in a statement. "We must modernize our broken legal immigration system to meet the needs of America’s 21st century economy and create jobs. Senator Hatch’s amendment provides important protections for American workers while also ensuring that fast-growing and high-tech firms can continue to create jobs here in America."

Earlier Tuesday, the committee voted down an amendment proposed by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz that would have stripped out the Gang of Eight's foundational principle that qualified undocumented immigrants to the United States should be eligible to work towards full citizenship.  The amendment failed 5-13 , with Hatch joining Gang of Eight Republican Sens. Jeff Flake and Lindsey Graham in voting with Democrats against the measure.

Cruz, discussed as a possible 2016 GOP presidential candidate, said the inclusion of the path to citizenship would "only encourage others to violate the law."

The Tea Party-affiliated senator added that, if the pathway remains in the bill, the reform effort will be voted down in the Republican-controlled House. That assertion was flatly rejected by Schumer, who retorted that "if we don't have a path to citizenship, there is no reform."

Another Cruz-sponsored amendment that would have made undocumented immigrants ineligible for means-tested federal benefits failed 6-12.

Hatch voted in support of that measure.

A few issues remain - including a possible high-stakes discussion about whether LGBT foreign nationals should be eligible to apply for green cards through their partners and spouses in the United States.

But senators hope to wrap up their committee work as soon as tonight and advance the amended bill to the full Senate, which is expected to take up the bill this summer.

On Tuesday, the top Republican in the upper chamber said he will not block the immigration debate on the Senate floor.

"With regard to getting started on the bill, it’s my intention if there is a motion to proceed required, to vote for the motion to proceed so we can get on the bill and see if it we’re able to pass a bill that actually moves the ball in the right direction,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said – indicating that he won’t support using Senate rules and procedures to keep the chamber from debating the legislation.

McConnell also said that he’s “hopeful” that a comprehensive immigration bill can pass the Senate.

“I think the Gang of Eight has made a substantial contribution in moving the issue forward…I’m told that the Judiciary Committee hasn’t in any fundamental way undone the agreements that were agreed by the eight senators," he said. "So I’m hopeful we can get a bill that we can pass here in the Senate.”

NBC's Kasie Hunt contributed to this report.

This story was originally published on Tue May 21, 2013 4:33 PM EDT