As the White House faces a trio of burgeoning controversies that have put the administration and agencies throughout Washington on the defensive, Attorney General General Eric Holder reiterated before a House panel Wednesday that he was not involved in the Justice Department's decision to seize two months of phone records from Associated Press journalists as a part of a leak probe.

LIVESTREAM: House Judiciary Committee hearing

The Justice Department has also opened an investigation into revelations that the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status for additional scrutiny. In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Holder said that prosecutors are looking at several different statutes in the investigation of those actions. 

He said those potential violations could include an IRS statute that requires employees to do their jobs without favoritism, civil rights laws, the Hatch Act that restricts a federal employee's political activities, or the law against making false statements to investigators.

“The facts will take us wherever they take us,” he added, promising a nationwide investigation. 

Asked about the leak probe, Holder confirmed that Deputy Attorney General James Cole authorized the subpoenas on AP reporters' phone records after Holder recused himself from the matter.

Brendan Smialowski / AFP - Getty Images

Attorney General Eric Holder is sworn in during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill May 15, 2013 in Washington, DC.

Holder first announced Tuesday that he had recused himself from the AP leak probe because he had previously been questioned by the FBI about the intelligence breach.

He added Wednesday that he also turned over his own phone records as a part of that questioning. 

He told the committee that he recused himself because he was one of the “relatively limited number of people” who had first-hand knowledge of the leaked information – and also because he had more regular communication with reporters than Cole.

“I was a possessor of the information that was ultimately leaked,” he added. “And the question then is, who of those people who possessed that information – which was a relatively limited number of people  within the Justice Department – who of those people actually spoke in an inappropriate way to the Associated Press,” he added.

In response to questions, he said that he did not know the date of his recusal for certain and that there was not a written record of it.  He also said that the White House would not have been informed of the recusal. 

Holder has been widely criticized by Republicans for DOJ's handling of the matter, scrutiny Holder noted at the beginning of his remarks.

"The head of the [Republican National Committee] called for my resignation in spite of the fact that I was not the person who was involved in that decision," he said.

The routine Justice Department oversight hearing became a hot ticket after two scandals – the DOJ probe and the revelations about the IRS – erupted since the end of last week. The Obama administration also continues to be dogged by lingering questions over its administration’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on a diplomatic outpost in Benghazi.

In opening remarks he was set to deliver before the House Judiciary Committee, Holder says the Justice Department “has taken critical steps to prevent and combat violent crime, to confront national security threats, to ensure the civil rights of everyone in this country, and to safeguard the most vulnerable members of our society.”

NBC's Pete Williams contributed to this report. 

This story was originally published on Wed May 15, 2013 1:07 PM EDT

In a day of congressional testimony that once again found the Obama administration under fire, a trio of whistleblowers expressed frustration toward the government’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012 assault against a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, and its subsequent investigation into that incident.

The diplomatic officials appeared on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to describe a hasty and chaotic response to the attack, which left four Americans – including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens – dead.

The witnesses said that the government was poorly prepared to weather the attack and was hesitant to respond, also contending that a subsequent review of the incident ordered by the State Department came up woefully short.

The testimony included new details from Gregory Hicks, a career foreign service officer who served as the deputy chief of mission in Libya at the time of the attacks.

He painstakingly recounted frenetic efforts to communicate between besieged individuals in Benghazi, and the governments of Libya and the United States. And he relayed the frustration of special forces who were told to stand down in Tripoli – Hicks said he did not know who gave the order – from deploying to Benghazi.

“They were furious,” Hicks told lawmakers on Capitol Hill. “I will quote Lt. Col. Gibson. He said, ‘This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military.’”

IN DEPTH: Official: US Special Forces team wasn't allowed to fly to Benghazi during attack

Hicks joined two other witnesses in a hearing driven primarily by Republicans, who have zealously pursued the Benghazi incident based on suspicions that President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been caught flat-footed by the attack, or worse, orchestrated a cover-up about the attack to benefit the president’s re-election bid.

At no point did Hicks or his fellow witnesses – Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism, and Eric Nordstrom, diplomatic security officer and former regional security officer in Libya – accuse the president or Clinton of having halted forces that might have assisted besieged diplomats in Benghazi. Democrats repeatedly pointed to testimony suggesting that reinforcements would have not have arrived in time, anyway.

But Republicans seized on several morsels of information, in particular Hicks’s incredulity toward the administration’s initial explanation, voiced by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, that the attack was the spontaneous outgrowth of protests related to an anti-Islamic video.

“I was stunned. My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed,” Hicks said of his reaction to Rice’s appearances on a series of Sunday talk shows following the attack. He further testified that there were no indications of protests in Libya, and that at no time did they suspect that the Benghazi attack was related to protests.

Republicans also homed in on suggestions by Hicks that a top Clinton aide had reacted angrily when Hicks agreed to speak privately with GOP investigators looking into the Benghazi attack. Hicks said that Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff, called him “upset” about his conversation with the GOP lawmakers.

The witnesses also expressed their misgivings about the Accountability Review Board’s (ARB) findings in a subsequent investigation into the government’s response to the attacks. The ARB, the witnesses said, failed to interview senior enough leaders in the State Department.

The testimony prompted pointed responses from Ambassador Thomas Pickering, who co-authored the ARB, and allies of Clinton, the popular former secretary of state who’s seen as a potential presidential candidate in 2016.

“I believe the Accountability Review Board did its work well,” Pickering, a coauthor of the report, said Wednesday afternoon on MSNBC. “I think the notion, quote, of ‘a cover-up’ has the elements of Pulitzer Prize fiction attached to it.”

And Philippe Reines, a senior aide to Clinton, told NBC News that accusations that Mills interfered in an investigation into Benghazi “completely and utterly false.”

Indeed, Democrats headed into the hearing warning against politicization of the Benghazi incident.

“I am not questioning the motives of our witnesses,” said Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the committee, at the outset of the hearings. “I am questioning the motives of those who want to use their statements for political purposes.”

His admonition didn’t stop many Republicans from plowing ahead with their questions.

“It's one of great mysteries,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, of questions as to why terror response forces were not ordered into action on Sept. 11. “Here we have this expertise, we've invested heavily in it, they tabletop it, they understand it, this is exactly what they train for and they were never asked to go into action.”

But while many Republicans appeared eager to keep Benghazi alive as a political issue, not all Republicans seemed as concerned about the issue, or the Obama administration’s forthcoming.

“I’ve been able to read all the cables, I’ve seen all the films. I feel like I know what happened in Benghazi; I’m fairly satisfied,” said Sen. Bob Corker, Tenn., the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on MSNBC. “I’m fairly satisfied.”

This story was originally published on Wed May 8, 2013 11:02 AM EDT

Voters in South Carolina’s first congressional district head to the polls on Tuesday to decide whether to offer former Gov. Mark Sanford a chance at political redemption, or instead send the sister of comedian Stephen Colbert to Congress.

Sanford, the Republican former governor whose time in office ended in a scandal triggered by a nationally-publicized extramarital affair and subsequent divorce, is seeking to once again win the district that elected him to Congress for three terms. A special election was called for this solidly Republican seat following GOP Rep. Tim Scott’s resignation to become the state’s next senator.

Randall Hill / Reuters

Elizabeth Colbert Busch and Mark Sanford shake hands after the South Carolina 1st Congresional debate in Charleston on April 29, 2013.

But while Sanford entered the special election as a modest favorite, he’s run into stiff opposition from Elizabeth Colbert Busch, a Clemson University administrator whose famous sibling has helped elevate what might otherwise be a mundane congressional race into a national media spectacle.

Democrats have rallied behind Colbert Busch, who has leaned on her relationships with members of the Charleston-area district during the campaign, and stressed her interest in partnering with businesses. Her experience, combined with Sanford’s personal baggage, has transformed the campaign into a competitive contest in a district where a Democrat hasn’t won since the early 1980s.

Sanford, in turn, has cast his Democratic challenger as a handmaiden of national Democrats, particularly House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., a cardboard cutout of whom Sanford staged a debate with several weeks ago.

But the biggest unspoken variable in the campaign has undeniably been the affair that practically torpedoed Sanford’s political career, which, at the time, included presidential aspirations.

Sanford launched his campaign by acknowledging the mistakes he’d made in conducting an extramarital affair with Argentine woman Maria Belen Chapur (who is now Sanford’s fiancée). The affair was an undercurrent for much of this spring’s campaign until Jenny Sanford, the governor’s former wife, filed a lawsuit alleging Sanford of having trespassed on her property.

For his part, Sanford’s betting that stage of the campaign is behind him.

"I think that [voters] had largely moved past my personal life at the end of the runoff, because I would have never won that runoff if that was still the focus," Sanford told the Huffington Post. "I think that the whole trespassing, October surprise thing brought that all back into the forefront."

Nonetheless, the revelation shook up the campaign, prompting the National Republican Congressional Committee – the group charged with electing GOP-ers to the House – to withdraw its resources from the campaign. And Democrats, along with supportive super PACs, stepped forward to launch their own advertising blitz in support of Colbert Busch.

Those moves prompted speculation that Sanford’s bid at political redemption might come up short following today’s special election. But the former governor has sought to battle back in recent days by stampeding throughout the district (with a handful of national media members in tow) and hosting multiple events.

But Colbert Busch has also tried to sustain her momentum with the benefit of national Democrats working on her behalf, who are eager to peel a vote away from Republicans’ majority in the House.

This story was originally published on Tue May 7, 2013 5:09 AM EDT

President Barack Obama extended his recent effort to broaden outreach to Congress with a round of golf on Monday – two Republicans, and one Democrat.

Obama hit the links with Sens. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Mark Udall, D-Colo.at Andrews Air Force Base, the site of the president’s occasional weekend rounds of golf.

The foursome comes amid a broader attempt by the White House to reach out to members of Congress, particularly Republican senators. The president has hosted several private dinners with senators, Democratic and Republican alike, in hopes of building a better relationship with Congress.

While Obama typically golfs with a group of White House aides considered to be friends of the president, he’s been known to mix business with pleasure before. He’s golfed with former President Bill Clinton, and hit the links with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, during the height of a summer 2011 showdown between the two men regarding the debt ceiling. 

Coincidentally, two of the invitees to today’s matchup are considered some of the best golfers in Congress. Udall has a handicap of 2, according to Golf Digest, while Corker has a handicap of 2.1.

Obama’s weekend golf excursions, though, have also made him the butt of Republicans’ jokes about the frequency with which the president golfs. 

Monday’s outing was a rare weekday foray for Obama; the weather in Washington was hardly inviting, either, with overcast crowds and evening showers in the forecast.

And the event showed Lady Luck to be a Republican or the day: Chambliss hit a hole-in-one.

"It was number 11 on the South Course, and 156 yards, and I hit a choked down five iron," he said later. "It was pretty special. the ball actually flew the route I wanted it to go. I didn't skull it."

This story was originally published on Mon May 6, 2013 12:33 PM EDT

CHARLESTON, S.C. -- Former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, bidding for political redemption in a congressional race after a high-profile divorce that seemingly ended his aspirations, sought to challenge the notion that he has a problem among women voters by spending part of a visit to a small shopping street looking for, as he put it, “a woman who hates me.”

The question of Sanford's ability to win women voters, first raised by his 2009 high-profile affair and divorce, re-emerged after a recent legal dispute with his ex-wife. He further complicated matters during a debate last week, saying he had not heard his opponent when she asked a question about the affair and his use of public funds surrounding the episode.

On Saturday, after answering several questions about whether he thought a trespassing charge at his ex-wife’s home might compromise his standing with female voters, Sanford led reporters on a foray in downtown Summerville, S.C., stopping women to ask them their opinion of him, specifically referring to the question posed by a reporter for NBC News.

“No group’s vote is a monolith,” Sanford said, pointing out that he had recently received an endorsement for Tuesday’s special election from a group of Republican women who took an ad out in a local newspaper.  Sanford is running against Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch to fill the South Carolina congressional seat vacated by now-Sen. Tim Scott.

Sanford also noted that during his visit to the hot dog restaurant Perfectly Frank’s, where earlier that afternoon his campaign announced the endorsement of the Tea Party Express, patrons had not brought the issue up.

When the reporter noted that he was speaking to a crowd that included some people who had gone to the restaurant specifically for the campaign event, Sanford dismissed that context as “the case of any political venue." 

“If you’re a political figure, some people, because they hear you’re going to be at some place, they’re going to show up,” he said.

Sanford then walked across the street to begin his meet-and-greet, flanked by two campaign staffers and three reporters, telling the reporter who asked the questions about his status with women that he rejected the “premise” that women wouldn’t vote for him because of his personal life.

He then indicated he wanted to seek out women who “hated” him.

“Let’s go to this woman – does she look biased?” he asked as he crossed the street, the NBC reporter walking next to him. 

As a car whizzed by, he told the reporter, “Watch out, I don’t want you to get run over. Actually I kind of do, but that’s a different story.”

After Sanford caught up with the woman he had pointed out, she told him she was a big supporter and that she would be making phone calls for him on Tuesday.

A staffer, mimicking Sanford’s tongue-in-cheek approach, suggested that the woman had been planted.

A few shops down, he stopped in a women’s consignment store to chat with two shoppers who were visiting South Carolina from Arkansas, but who had seen some of his campaign ads and signs, which they said were “beautiful.”

“You look like you’re totally capable and we wish you luck,” one of the women told him.

Laughing, Sanford pointed to the two cameras in front of him, saying, “you hear that?”

Later, Sanford visited a women’s clothing store where the shopkeeper said she knew one of Sanford’s staffers, and that the staffer “knows I’m in your corner.”

“Oh good,” the former governor said. “[But] that defeats what I’m after.”

Pointing to the NBC reporter, he continued, “We were trying to find her a woman who hates me so she can use it in her TV show. She’s with NBC National.”

As Sanford wrapped up his hourlong canvas, he came across a couple, each of whom expressed their support for him.

After indicating, as he had previously, that the NBC reporter was looking to talk to women who didn’t support him because of his marital history, the woman, Patty Hulbard, responded, “I'm not your biggest fan. What you did I don't appreciate, but that should not influence my vote necessarily.”

 “You line up ideology with my thinking, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt,” she continued. 

“I appreciate that. Thank you,” Sanford said.

Turning to NBC’s camera, he pointed and said, “That’s pretty close to what you’re looking for. We’re getting somewhere, all right.” 

This story was originally published on Sun May 5, 2013 11:57 AM EDT

Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford meets the Democrat looking to end his bid for political redemption, Elizabeth Colbert Busch, in a high-profile debate Monday evening, just one week before the May 7 special election that will send one of them to Congress.

Colbert Busch and Sanford will share a stage for their first and only debate ahead of next Tuesday's special election to fill the vacancy that occurred following then-Rep. Tim Scott's, R, appointment to the U.S. Senate earlier this year.

Mic Smith / AP

Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford speaks with reporters at Hay Tire & Automotive in Mount Pleasant, S.C., on Monday, April 22, 2013.

The campaign has attracted an intense amount of coverage in the national media because of the two candidates involved. Sanford, the former governor whose term ended in ignominy following an extramarital affair that resulted in his divorce and an ethics rebuke, is seeking a chance at political redemption. Standing in his way is Colbert Busch, the Clemson University administrator whose candidacy has been aided by the fame of her brother — political satirist Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central. 

While Sanford entered the showdown with an upper hand over Colbert Busch in this traditionally Republican district, the race was thrown into turmoil in recent weeks by Jenny Sanford, the former governor's ex-wife. She filed court documents accusing Sanford of trespassing on her property, thereby reviving some of the ugly, public 2009 divorce that ended the former two-term governor's possible aspirations to run for president. 

In the days following that revelation, Democrats and their allies went on the attack with television ads attacking Sanford. Republicans, meanwhile, retreated, forcing Sanford to fend for himself in the campaign when the National Republican Congressional Committee announced it would not run ads in the race. (The most recent poll, which was conducted by automated phone interviews, suggested Colbert Busch had the advantage over Sanford; NBC News does not officially recognize those polls.) Sanford has responded to his perceived slide by casting Colbert Busch as a handmaiden of Democrats' relatively unpopular leaders in Washington. Sanford went so far as to debate a cardboard cutout of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to illustrate his point.

Still, Monday's debate might offer the candidates their best chance to affect the trajectory of the race before voters head to the poll. Perhaps in a reflection of which way things are going, Sanford's demanded more debates — that is, more opportunities to ding Colbert Busch in public. The showdown will be broadcast on C-SPAN.

This story was originally published on Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:44 PM EDT

The House overwhelmingly passed a bill on Friday to give the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) flexibility to defray spending cuts from its budget as part of the sequester, allowing the agency to restore furloughed air traffic controllers whose absences had spurred nationwide flight delays.

The House moved quickly late Friday morning to follow the lead of the Senate, which unanimously approved legislation late Thursday evening to give the secretary of transportation increased authority to transfer funds from its existing budget to restore furloughed air traffic controllers.

The legislation heads to the White House next for President Barack Obama's signature. White House press secretary Jay Carney said at his press briefing on Friday that Obama would sign the legislation.

Though some House Democrats griped on Friday that the air traffic controller furloughs should provide the impetus for Congress to address all of the cuts prescribed by the sequester, the House easily cleared the two-thirds procedural threshold it needed to approve the FAA patch. 

The sequester, a series of $85 billion in automatic spending cuts applied across all government agencies, started on March 1. It was an outgrowth of the 2011 agreement between Congress and the Obama administration to raise the debt ceiling, and only took effect because of their subsequent inability to reach an alternative fiscal agreement.

Recommended stories: 

• First Thoughts: No good options when it comes to Syria
• Will Paul Ryan take immigration reform to the finish line in the House?
• House Chairman will introduce immigration bills this week

This story was originally published on Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:13 PM EDT

A seemingly mundane vote on Wednesday intended to help Republicans soften their image on the health care issue laid bare some of the still-raw divisions between the GOP’s pragmatists and the party’s more obstinate ideologues.

House Republican leaders were forced to pull a vote on legislation designed as a prime opportunity to fuse conservative priorities with a proposal easily grasped by voters: improving coverage for Americans with pre-existing conditions. Conservative lawmakers fretted that the proposal would perpetuate an element of “Obamacare,” and once again balked at supporting Republican leaders. The situation illustrated, again, the party leaders’ difficulty in managing some of the GOP’s most unruly conservatives.

Alex Wong / Getty Images file photo

House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)

Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Va., the No. 2 Republican in the House, was the chief proponent of the now-shelved legislation, which would have reallocated money from the program’s prevention fund in order to beef up the insurance pool established for high-risk patients under “Obamacare.”

“We, in the House, remain committed to putting our conservative principles first to help people first,” Cantor said at a press conference with fellow Republican leaders.

Though President Barack Obama had threatened to veto the legislation, Republicans pursued it nonetheless to notch a positive, campaign-friendly vote for House lawmakers.

But Cantor’s office, which sets the schedule for the House floor, was forced to reverse course by Wednesday afternoon, and cancel a planned vote on the legislation when it became apparent that they would lack the necessary votes to advance the bill. (Most, if not all, Democrats intended to oppose the bill, meaning GOP leaders could afford to suffer few defections in their own ranks.

“We had good conversations with our members and made a lot of solid progress,” said Erica Elliot, a spokeswoman for House Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who explained many House Republicans were set to leave town to attend the dedication of the George W. Bush presidential library on Thursday.

Doug Heye, a spokesman for Cantor, said: “We intend to bring the bill back up when Congress returns in May.”

The Virginia Republican’s proposal had enjoyed the high-profile support of conservative organizations like Americans for Tax Reform and Independent Women’s Voice, along with several other prominent conservative voices.

But the proposal angered conservatives, who complained that Cantor’s legislation would perpetuate an expensive part of the health reform law, and do nothing to halt the underlying legislation. The influential Club for Growth, which opposes the bill, said it would include lawmakers’ vote on its annual scorecard. Brent Bozell, a conservative figurehead who’s clashed often with the GOP establishment, dubbed the proposal “CantorCare.”

“It fixes part of Obamacare that the Democrats designed,” wrote Erick Erickson, editor of the influential conservative blog RedState. “It makes Obamacare less bad, more palatable, and more likely to stick around instead of collapsing under its own weight as Paul Ryan and others have kept saying it would.”

But the entire ordeal illustrated Republicans’ continued difficulties in finding the sweet spot between conservative consistency and the process of governing – a phenomenon within the GOP that extends well beyond Capitol Hill.

This story was originally published on Wed Apr 24, 2013 4:24 PM EDT

The pro-gun control group founded by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., and her husband, Mark Kelly, launched new radio ads Wednesday against two GOP senators who voted last week to block legislation expanding background checks for gun sales.

Americans for Responsible Solutions (ARS), the group founded by Giffords and her husband, unveiled new ads that accuse Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., of opposing "common sense" measures to "keep guns out of the hands of criminals."

The ads are significant because they represent the first real effort by a pro-gun control group to inflict some measure of political damage against its detractors following last week's bipartisan vote to block a bipartisan compromise on background checks from moving forward. ARS said it had received over 24,000 donations since the Senate vote, and would be introducing additional targets of advertising later this week.

McConnell is up for re-election in 2014, but in Republican-leaning Kentucky; he hasn't yet attracted a major Democratic opponent. Ayotte doesn't face re-election until 2016, though her race in swing-state New Hampshire will be much tougher.

Proponents of stricter gun laws are counting on public opinion -- which, right now, largely favors expanded background checks for gun sales -- to persist, and allow them to inflict some political damage on those senators who blocked the legislation.

Other groups, like Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which is backed by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have also vowed political retribution for lawmakers who oppose tighter gun measures.

To that end, a new Pew Research Center/Washington Post poll released Wednesday found that 47 percent of Americans were either "disappointed" or "angry" at last week's Senate vote; 39 percent said they were "relieved" or "very happy" at the largely-GOP push to block the background checks legislation.

That poll was conducted April 18-21, and has a 3.7 percent margin of error.

This story was originally published on Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:04 AM EDT

A Tennessee congressman who's found himself in trouble before on Twitter said he'd tried to "punk" the Washington press corps by directing, then deleting, a seemingly flirty tweet to the singer Cyndi Lauper this week.

After having found himself in the middle of a frenzy earlier this year regarding a message he sent toward a young woman -- whom he later admitted was his daughter -- Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., said that he was attempting to rope D.C. reporters into a feeding frenzy by directing a tweet toward Lauper, the '80s pop star. Both had attended a White House celebration of Memphis music earlier this week.

Cohen made two tweets toward Lauper on Tuesday, which he subsequently deleted. Both were archived by a government transparency group, the Sunlight Foundation:

"@cyndilauper great night,couldn't believe how hot u were.see you again next Tuesday.try a little tenderness."

"Cyndi,Wow what a night!See you next Tuesday and Try a little tenderness again!Wow!What a special night.Thanks Steve."

Two days later, he mentioned Lauper again, this time on the House floor where he praised her performance at the White House event.

“While there were a lot of great performers there, I want to put a particular shout-out to Ms. Cyndi Lauper, ‘cause she’s special,” he said. 

On Friday, Cohen told NBC News that the tweets were part of an elaborate prank, to demonstrate how the media jumps for salacious stories. He went on to say "tweet and delete" is the best way to get media's attention, accusing the press of a shameful rush to judgment.

Cohen hopes that the attention given to the Lauper tweet while promote a PBS documentary that airs on Tuesday about Memphis Soul music. (Cohen represents a Memphis-area district.)

He also mentioned that he had "waited for two months to trick the press corps after what they did to my family," referencing the revelation that he is the father of a young woman he tweeted at during the State of the Union address.

**UPDATE**

During a press event Friday, Cohen was asked why the media should believe that the tweets were fake. He told reporters that he spoke to two other lawmakers about the plan before it unfolded. 

"They can call (Rep.) John Yarmuth and (Rep.) Joe Courtney who I talked to about it on Monday on the floor and said, 'Boys, wait till I see what I do this week with the press,'" Cohen said, "So call Yarmuth or Courtney."

Spokesmen for both offices tell NBC News that Cohen informed them of the plot after it had happened. 

Also of note: the House wasn't in session on Monday.

NBC News reached out to Cohen's office for clarification, and was told that he misspoke -- he meant to say that the other lawmakers were told of the plan before the story broke, not before the tweets were deleted.

NBC's Frank Thorp contributed to this report.

This story was originally published on Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:14 PM EDT

Women are a key driver of support for legislation overhauling the nation's gun and immigration laws, according to new data in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, just as Congress prepares to take up major legislation on both of those issues.

Women outpace men in their support for stricter gun laws and immigration reform that provides undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship, data which becomes more salient in light of the Republican Party’s effort to regain its footing with women voters after last fall’s elections.

View full poll results here

The gender gap is most pronounced when it comes to the issue of stricter gun controls, legislation on which the Senate voted to begin consideration this Thursday.

Sixty-five percent of women said they favor stricter laws governing the sale of firearms, versus just 5 percent who favor less strict laws. Twenty-seven percent of women said the law should be kept as it is now. By comparison, 44 percent of men favor stricter gun laws, while 41 percent said laws should stay the same.

(Also of note: Self-described mothers favor stricter gun laws even more overwhelmingly; 70 percent of mothers with children in the home said that laws governing firearm sales should be tightened.)

While the gap is less pronounced, women respondents in this month’s NBC/WSJ poll were more sympathetic to arguments in favor of comprehensive immigration reform.

Women favor immigration reform that allows a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants by a 36-point margin. Sixty-seven percent of women said they would favor such a proposal, versus 31 percent who would oppose those reforms. Men also favor immigration reform, but by a slightly slimmer, 60 percent to 38 percent spread.

When explained that a pathway to citizenship would involve paying a fine, any back taxes, passing a security background check and taking other measures, men and women would favor immigration reform at roughly the same levels: Seventy-eight percent of women favor such a proposal, versus 74 percent of men.

The gender gap also extends to some high-profile social issues at the forefront of American political debate at the moment, like same-sex marriage.

In the poll, women favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, 56 percent to 40 percent. Men, by contrast, favor allowing same-sex marriages, 50 percent to 43 percent. (That's a relatively seismic shift for men; in the March 2004 NBC/WSJ poll, just 26 percent of men favored gay marriage, while 52 percent opposed.)

The poll was conducted April 5-8, and has a 4.3 percent margin of error for the subsample of women, and a 4.5 percent margin of error for the subsample of men.

With a bipartisan group of senators expected to unveil immigration-reform legislation in the next few days, a brand-new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that nearly two-thirds of Americans – including eight-in-10 Latinos – support giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship.

A slight majority of Republican respondents oppose this path, possibly foreshadowing the resistance which any comprehensive immigration reform bill might receive, especially in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives.

But when Republicans hear that a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants includes paying fines and back taxes, almost three-quarters of them support the idea.

What’s more, a majority of the public – for the first time in the poll – agrees with the statement that immigration strengthens the nation, reflecting a shift in attitude on this issue. 

Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted this survey with the Democratic firm Hart Research Associates, says that this change in sentiment on immigration “speaks to something potent,” particularly given the economic struggles of the past five years.

"These more positive attitudes provide more leeway for lawmakers to build support for change on this issue," McInturff adds.

View the poll results here

On other matters, the poll shows a majority of the public favors stricter gun laws, President Barack Obama’s approval rating falling below 50 percent for the first time since Oct. 2012, and fewer than two-in-10 Americans saying the automatic budget cuts known as “the sequester” have significantly affected them.

Immigration – a strength or weakness?
A majority (54 percent) agrees with the statement that immigration adds to the nation’s character and strengthens it by bringing diversity and talent to the country.

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

Tens of thousands of immigration reform supporters march in the "Rally for Citizenship" on the West Lawn of the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on April 10, 2013.

In a 2010 NBC/WSJ survey, fewer than half of respondents agreed with that statement, and in 2005, a plurality said that immigration weakened the nation.

Additionally, the Democratic Party holds a 7-point advantage over the Republican Party on the question of which party does a better job in dealing with immigration.

Among an oversample of Latino respondents, the Democratic edge increases to 26 points.

Regarding the current legislative debate over immigration, 64 percent of respondents say they favor allowing undocumented immigrants to have the opportunity to become legal American citizens.

That includes 82 percent of Latinos, 80 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of political independents supporting a path to citizenship.

But 51 percent of Republicans oppose it, versus 47 percent who back it.

Yet when told that the pathway to citizenship would require paying fines and back taxes, as well as passing a security-background check, support grows – with 76 percent of total respondents, and 73 percent of Republicans backing the path.

That pathway to citizenship is the heart of a comprehensive immigration reform proposal that the so-called “Gang of Eight” senators – including Democrats Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin and Republicans John McCain and Marco Rubio – are drafting and plan to introduce in the next few days.

The proposal also calls for strengthening the U.S.-Mexico border, tying that security to establishing the path to citizenship and expanding legal immigration.

A majority of all respondents (51 percent) believe undocumented immigrants should be eligible for citizenship five years after application. Just 12 percent say the eligibility should occur after 10 years, and only 18 percent believe citizenship should be immediate.

On border security, nearly two-thirds of Americans (63 percent) think the U.S.-Mexico border is “mostly” or “totally” not secure, compared with a smaller percentage of Latino respondents (49 percent) who believe that.

55 percent favor stricter gun laws
In addition to immigration, Congress is grappling with the issue of gun control, with the Senate expected to vote on Thursday whether to begin debate on a Democratic-backed measure requiring background checks for most gun sales.

According to the poll, 55 percent favor stricter laws covering the sale of firearms.

That’s down 6 points from the Feb. 2013 NBC/WSJ poll – conducted after Obama’s State of the Union address that contained a call to action on gun control – but it’s essentially unchanged from the Jan. 2013 poll.

Yet there’s a wide political divide to these numbers: 82 percent of Democrats favor stricter gun laws, while just 27 percent of Republicans do.

Obama’s approval rating drops to 47 percent
Despite majorities backing the broad outlines of his legislative priorities on immigration and guns, President Obama confronts a pessimistic public and declining poll numbers.

Only 31 percent of Americans believe the country is headed in the right direction – a decline of 10 points since Dec. 2012.

His overall job-approval rating stands at 47 percent, which is down 3 points since February and which represents the first time he’s been below 50 percent since just before the 2012 election.

In addition, 47 percent approve of the president’s economic handling (up three points from February), and 46 percent approve of his handling of foreign policy (down six from Dec. 2012).

Democratic pollster Fred Yang of Hart Research says that the public’s sour attitude, particularly on the economy, has “dragged down” Obama’s numbers.

Sequester’s limited impact (so far)
Lastly, the NBC/WSJ poll finds that only a combined 16 percent of Americans say the automatic across-the-board budget cuts that went into effect earlier in the year have impacted them either “a great deal” or “quite a bit.”

By comparison, a whopping 75 percent say the cuts to military and non-military programs have affected them “just some” or “not much.”

But a plurality of respondents – 47 percent – believe the cuts will mostly harm the economy, versus 30 percent who say they won’t have an impact.

The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted of 1,000 adults (including 300 cell phone-only respondents) from April 5-8, and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.